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

March 14, 1844 Tarihli The New York Herald Gazetesi Sayfa 3
Text content (automatically generated)

My I profess it. How lone could I possess this confidence if 1 aid not show by years of public activity and energy, and the continuousness of tny public conduct, that I deserved it 1 Gentlemen, I stand before yon, having earned that confidence which no man who ever wished to perpetrate u crime could retain. No man could continue to preserve it under such circumstances. For nearly forty years 1 have held to the principle I ayowed, and my sincerity has been unmitiAted, complete^ and entire. No, the voiye of calumny cannot malign me. Uh! gentlemen, you dmer from me in religion. Hut tell not those whose faith I profeM that they have been deceived?tell them not that they would countenance hypocrisy and treachery. You cannot believe it ; the Sublic without will uot believe it: an English ury will not believe it. Europe would be made to startle at the proposition. I, a Roman Catholic, am placed here before a Protestant Jury, in the presence of the monarcha of the earth. I ask you whether you will calmly pause in a matter which includes the interests ol very many Protestants of the highest re?|?ectability, or whether you will tarnish your case by any verdict which shall throw a doubt upon the sincerity of my whole life, v nil upon the sincerity of my advocacy of principles which it has been thn pride and boast of my existence to avow?my comfort in my declining years, and is, and will be my consolation before a higher tribunal 1 Hut no!?I do you injustice in supposing such a case. No, you are incapable of taking such a view as that. 1 may now observe upon the almost ouly reinaining mutter. 1 doubt,however, whether my sincerity Las been impugned?it has never been publicly impugned?I urn quite sure it ought not to be. Yes, gentlemen, I do say, it is impossible for you to believe that 1 would desert those principles of which I boast, or that I should forsake that doctrine which has been the very lifeblood of my political existence, and that I should forsake all and entei into a conspiracy. No: 1 have been more successful, and I am more successful, by acting on the principles of justice, of charity, of obedience to the laws,and a total abhorrence ot force and violence. No; vou cannot believe that 1 would desert every principle of my public life and enter into a conspiracy. No; it would be too grossly inconsistent with anything which ever yet occurred in public conduct. But it is not on t'<is point alone?there are other incidents in tny public life which will enableyou to form abetter judgement of my conduct. There is not one of you in that box who doe# not remember the frightful state of the combination ot the working and trading classes. You know that before that combination was put down lives were saetificed in the public streets, violence wus offered to individuals and to property from day to day, and, if death did not ensue in recent cases, it was accidental, rather than owing to the strict forbearance on the part of the combinatora. The public authorities were insufficient to cope with them ! Now, it is said that I am a man ready tn eiepfiee a principle to popularity. I could easily have made myself popular among the combinntors. 1 opposed them, I stood alone in my opposition to them; I did so at the peril of my life. At a meeting at the J^xcuangr, uu mrsc men were u^uncu iu me, and I owed the preservation of my life to a policeman. You remember it all! What occurred ! I contended with those who were so furiously against me. and I opposed the combination. I did au this at tne expense of nty popularity, and at the risk of ray lite. Is it likely that I should take this part in order to play the hypocrite 1 It was not in that case alone, that I acted thus; lor what do you find recorded of me in the newspapers! Why, my persevering and perpetual opposition to Kibbonism ?my condemnation of all secret societies. Have you not seen, and do you not remember my warm denunciation of such societies, to the police?my publicly calling U|>on them to stop the progress of Kibbonism! Oh, gentlemen, if I were a conspirator, would I not be glad to be joined by conspirators ! It my means were applied to what 1 wished to carry out, would I not have roused the Ribbonmen in various parts of Ireland ! I had influence enough to do so. I had only to countenance it, and nobody knows how far it would havi extended had I done so. Yoji have before you over and over again my discountenance of, and resistance to, secret societies. Gentlemen, take these things into your consideration, and say, upon your conscience ?say, if you can, that that man is a buse hypocrite! But you cannot say so?you would not so tarnish your consciences. But this point in my political life must hive struck you:?I am, and have been, opposed to tne laws for making provision for the poor. I opposed poor laws of every kind. With the influence which I possessed, conld I not have poverty against pro perty, ana nave insisted upon an me poor peing iea by the rich 1 I was tormented by my friends. I wan sneered at and jeered by all?by many who had joined me. I consulted my conscience. I saw the real natnre 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 property of the country. I knew it was unfit for the people, but I am bound to say that when it passed into a law { did cot give it the smallest opposition. I 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. I am ready now to facilitate and assist its working in every way I can: hut I go back to the time when it waa unpopular, ana when it was shouted out of society by those whom I estimated most, and whose good opinion I valued, and 1 apj>eal to that part of my life as an answer to this foul charge of con(piracy. Gentlemen, you must also recollect, tor it is in evidence, tne manner of my answer to M Thiers' speech and address. You heard that in the evidence of Mr. Bond Hughes; and now, as I have mentioned his name, let me say a word ot'Mr. Bond Hughes, (pentlemen, f was one of those the most active against that gentleman, because I feh convinced at the time that he had sworn that which was not true. Now, 1 am gla I bis name has been referred to, because it affords me the opportunity which I am proud to avail myself of, to declare that 1 never saw a w:tness on the table who gave his evidence more fairly than Mr. Hughes, and I am firmly convinced thut it was a mistake, which any honest man might have fallen into, that occasioned the apparent contradiction in his evidence- 1 know this is not a part of the case, but I am sure your lordships will think that I urn not wrong in making this public avowal. It ap|>ears by his report, also, now firmly I rejected the only ground on which we could obtain sympathy irom them, and that we declined to take any support from them in the slightest degree disparaging to our religion. But that is put still more strongly when you recollect my strong denunciations of the American slave owners. You will recollect that at the time large sums of money were being collected in the slaveholding Ptate6 of the Union. Remittances were in progress, and considerable progress had been made in getting up an association in Charleston, 8. Carolina. l)id I shrink from doing iny duty upon the slave question 1 Hid 1 not use the strongest language t Did I not denounce as the enemies of God and man. thogg afrits and : : !_ ? rvj .L. I criniiodin i iwi & uoi compLre iiie associating uur elves with them as an association with thieves, and pickpocket*, and felons! Did 1 not resort to language the strongest and most violent to express ray denunciation of the horrible traffic in human beings ; of the execrable nature of the slave trade ?and of all the immorality and frightful eonseriences that resulted front tnat infamous traffic. If was a hypocrite I might have given theni 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 assistance could be accepted by us which should in the slightest degree interfere with our allegiance to oui .Sovereign. Gentlemen, you will recollect also, that we had offers of supjiort lront the Republican party in France, headed by Ledru Rollin. ft is a considerable and every powerful party. It is that party which hates the Rnglish most, with an irrational and ferocious hatred, arising most probably front the blow struck at their vanity at Waterloo? that is the party headed by Ledru Rollin. (ientletnen, you have his letter, and you have my answer. Did I seen his support, or that of his party* Did I mitigate even Iroin the decisiveness of my answer; did I appear unwilling to repeat and readily uvow itl No, gentlemen?I took a firm tone of loyalty? I rejected their support?I refused their offer?I cautioned them against coming over here?I refused everything that wns inconsistent with i*y allegiance and is that the way that my hypocricy is proved t you! Rut not alone with that party in France die the Irish people fling off all connexion, but even as regarded the present Monarch of France, we refused all, even the slightest sympathy. It lias gone forth to the world?it has been proved to you that I hurled defiance, so far asanhumblo individual like myself could, against the Monarch who ut present governs the French nation The learned Attorney General, who with a good deal of ingenuity, introduced to your notice the report of the Secret Committee of the House of Commons, ku 1797, and he told you that we were acting upon that plan. In 1797 they were looking for French sympathy and assistance?they had emissaries in France representing them there, and they had probaly persons representing the F rench here ? tney were imminn mr foreign torce and foreign assistance, and he telle you that our objects were thone of the United Irishmen of 1797! Oh, gentlemen they were diametrically the reverse. It may be that we look to the restoration of the elder branch of the House of Bourbon, known as Henry the 5th, but f should be sorry to waitfora repeal of the union till then. (Much laughter.) Not that I should disparage his title, for I lor one believe ihat Europe will never be nerfectly safe until thut Branch of the family of the Bourbons is restored restored upon the principles upon which the monarchy of Itiris was restored. But I would not disparage the claim that I for a moment laughed at, but I said this is a <piartcr from whence we refuse the slightest assistance, and I hurled the indignation of myimnd against the man who would ofb r to the chil drenot France ta l>? educe ted by infidel professors, and refined thein that religious education their parente wished ihem to receive. I will not, gentlemen, enter further into this point, but you will see from those papers my antagonism to the French govern* ment. But, gentlemen, incur n> uiumu Puiui ? m; conduct?my antagonism to the Chartists. V ou may remember that when the Association was in full force, the Chartists were in a state of insurrection in Englund?they were coining in their hundreds and thousands and tens of thousands into the manufacturing towns of England, and you will recollect further, that there was something "facinating in the doctrines of Chartism for the poorer classes, because it proposed in truth and in substance, a violation of all the laws of property. If 1 had meant anything wicked or criminal would I not have j befriended 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 outrage actually committed in Manchester on account of the Irish holding aloof from iheml Yes, gentlemen, I assisted the constituted authorities in England, by my I influence over the Irish residing there. Why was , it not gr'eu to you in evidence, tlia'. the moment a member of our Association joined the Chartist institution 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- J rection?if I was anxious for a popular outbreakgood Heaven, let any man of you place himself in my situation, and ask what he couli! do, for the present is a charge of a popular insurrection. If I wished lor an insurrection would I not wish to have streng h?would I not wish to have the system of Ptvirliam uiiniMirted. Did not I on tl?<? nllx'r Icind. meet it ia Dublin?did 1 not hunt it out ot Dublin, and, if my oath were taken, I firmly declare niy conscientious conviction that, had 1 not interfered, Chartism would have spread from 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 heuven, I successfully opposed and resisted it,and while I have a right to make you judge of my actions aud motives, by referring to those leading features of my political life, I shall ever rejoice that I kept society and property from that invasion. Gentlemen, there is aoo'her part woithy ot your consideration, name Iv, my consistent sworn allegiance to our Sovereign You find it in all these newspapers- Her name is never mentioned but with re?pect,aod always with enthusiasm and delight; nay, when a speech was made by her Majesty's ministers, derogatory to our objects and mo'ives,don't you find me with most tedious pertinacity making a d stinctioo between her Majrsry and her ministers. You have heard it fifty times repeated, and at every meeting?I omi'trd it at none, and I made in all these cases a constitutional distinction between herself and her ministers, and the Attorney-General has no right to say that ih*re was one particle of disloyalty to wards her in my observations upon the speech. Gentlemes, having taken all these precautions? having related these assertions over and over again, almost disgusting those who heard me even to nausea, what then becomes of the Attorney General that I spoke disrespectfully of her Majesty 1 My lords, I thank heaven there is not a particle in this case to taint, in the slightest degree, our loyalty or allegiance. Now, my lords, as regards myself, 1 am come that time of life that she can uo tion iu this court who bus taken haii' the pains 1 have to inspire Hnd win the allegiance of the people of Ireland. There is one thing I think the Attorney General acted unfairly in. He read the Queen's speech, and then iny newspaper speech, and the scolding ministers gave me, and then I said: "Judy would not let us go on. He suid that I lenresented the Queen as a fishwotnan. Whatever becomes of ihe case don't believe that- I confess that I feel 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 I ever Hnoke in disrespectful terms of my Sovereign, *na I say it is false to impute to me an intention of upplying 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, abhor, and hate the imputation of offering a word of any thing in the least disrespectful towards my august monarch. Upon all occasions I inculcated principles of sincere loyalty to the. throne, and I distinctly separated all reference in my remarks between the person of the Queen und her Ministers. I fear I have detained you longer than 1 had intended in referring to what has heretofore been my public conduci; but, in coming to u proper estimate of my motives, it was necessaiy to draw attention to my acts, and though iny expositions may be feeble?though my talents may he small, though my energies may be decreasing,and though iny strength inay h declining, and years increasing, still you will find then as now implanted in my breast a burning lov.; for the prosperity of Ireland, and the liberties of my country. Well, the public meetings did take, place; I do not geny it. Their object was the repeal of tne Union. Was that a bad object 1 I deny that it was. On the contrary it was a most useful object for Ireland, so much so that before I sit down, I ho|>e to demonstrate to every one in Court?the neutrality of the bench of course excepted?the absolute ne^^ty I for such a measure, and its effects on the pro|K*rty, I commerce, and industry, of your native land. I | ||"J^ niai manj- vi mc .# Wly *v iium k uuurcw, Will bo induced from the strength of the case! sliull put before them to join in calling for the Repeal?(a laugh ] It in my duty to put the facta before you, and I will be able to show to demonstration that the Englit% Parliament has, from a remote period, governed Ilk-land with a narrow jealousy of Irish prosperity, and in a grudging spirit of its independence. Then I will first refer you to the history of our woollen manufactures, and to what did happen in the reign of a monarch whose memory you probably hold in very great esteem. I will now now cull yout attentions to the transactions of 1782, which was looked upon a? a final ad jiistment of the relations between the two countries, and when an Irish Parliament was declured to last for ever. I will next direct my observations to prove the great prosperity which Followed as the result of legislative independence. I will then show you that the measure of the L'uion was forced upon the Irish j?eople. I will demonstrate the manifold evils flowing front it, and the bad effects on our trade and commerce, and will refer you to the existence of vast distress and misery throughout the laud; and 1 will prove to you tliut the only remedy for its cure, and for avoiding separation from England, is to be found in the restoration of our native Parliament. N'uw, as to the ill-treatment of Ireland by England, the laet is so confessedly true that it is scarcely necessary for trie to adduce any proof of it?it is scarcely necessary for nte to detain you by any remurk upon this part of the case, yet I am brought here by the Attorney-General because I have agitated to bring about the greatest possible blessings to my countrymen. My defence is that lite Repeal of the Union would relieve all ibe dt^Uiss and misery which we behold, and in the performance of my sacred duty to the Irish people 1 will place their core triumphantly before you. 1 have said that it was my duty?I am bound by gratitude also. Once I have represented the county of Clare, with a population of 250,01)0 inhabitants. Once I had the nonor of representing the county of Waterford, with its 300,000 inhabitants. Once again I have been returned for my native county Kerry, containing a population of two hundred and sixty thousand inhabitants. Once ior ivie;im, w nor?r prupiu uiuuum iu .hju,u"u; ana i now stand the representative for the County of Cork, with a population ef 75(),00<) inhabitants. Besides this, I have twice had the honor of being the member of the city of Uublin, 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. I am their hired servunt. 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, anil I am ready now to earn it. I begin by showing yon the system of nongovernment pursued by Kngland at all times towards this country, and I shall (piote lor you the views put forward by an eminent French historian?one of the literati of his day. Mr. I'Conncll here read an extract from the work of M. Thiers, in which it was stated that the Knglish government had for live centuries governed Ireland in a spirit of jealousy of its prosperity?and describing the fertility ol the soil?the blessings poured on it by nature, but the wretchedness of its people. Thai was a melancholy picture of (he manner in winch mis country was governed for five hundred years, and of the baneful influence of Knglish government. Have I the authority of Theirs alone 1 No. I have also the authority of Mr. Pitt for the advantages possessed by Ireland; and I find him, in discussing the commercial propositions of 17*5, admitting that it was the uniform policy of Kngland to depress Irish interests, in order to advance their own That is not my language, it is the language of Mr. Pitt, avowing openly the policy pursued by Kngland towards Ireland. I now come to another authority, which, in this Court, avail events, will carry great weight. I mean that of the late Chief Justice Husche. Listen, 1 beseech you, to the words of that gifted niun:? " You are called upon to give up your indenendenee and to whom arc vou called uoori to sivr it upl To a nation which for fix hund ed years has treated you with uniform oppression and injustice. The Treasury Bench startles at the assertion?wow mtui hie nrrmo t*t. If the Treasury Bench scold me, Mr. Pitt will scold them; it is his assertion in so many words in hi* speech. Ireland, says he,has heen alwayj treated with injustice and illtberality. Ireland, 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 centuries have the British Parliament and nation kept you down, shackled your commerce, and paralyzed your exertion*?despised your character, and ridiculed your pretensions to any privileges, contour- , cial or unconstitutional. She hus never conceded a point to you which she could avoid,or granted favor which wasnot reluctantly distilled. They have been all wrung from her like drops of her blood."Gentlemen, have I ever used longuage half so strong, hall so powerful, or ha f so eloquent,it the passage I have read 1 There was this cat did ud.niaeion made by Mr. Secretary Cooke, the author of the pamphlet? oamclv, that the intention of the British government was only to prevent Ireland from growing too great and powerful There was another passage in it to the ? fleet that England wasextortiog.iu the mo. nient ol her strength, tnose ngnis wmcti etie wou a likely concede in a moment of her weakness?thai it wad the denial ot the richtsfroin one great nation to another, from an intolerance of its p-osperity. When in m ginning to address you (resurmd Mr. O'Conml ) I said thai 1 would be able to thow you that it was an lu'oleranoe ol Irish prosperity that had created the Union ; and if the anttior of this sentiment were here in court, he ib u d have avowed every word of what he had said, for ; he spoke it in the sincerity of his heart I I think 1 need not go muchlurther to prove to you that it was the iiuolsrance of the British government for the Irish prosperity which had influenced the measure of the Union, Gentlemenufthe Jury, mark the words, for you have this avowal from an authority you cannot doubt. These arc 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 you uext, gentlemen of the Jury, to a letter from Primate 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 diflerent sects and religions in Ireland, and selling one in actual hostility towards the other, for the purpose of completing their own unjust intentions, and that such a policy must he deprecated as a very great calamity. Have I not proved what I have said, (continued Mr. O'C.) from the evidence of such men as Pitt, Btishe,Primate Boulter,and others. 1 shall now,gentlemen, invite you to consider with me transactions of 17H2, 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 was a solitary bright spot in the history of Ireland, a green island, asit were, amid the sterility of the world?an oasis of prosperity amid the mass of misrule and tyranny which had surrounded us. The transactions of 17d2 cannot be forgotten, and the prosperity of Irelund at the time, asit appeared, was ot the most consummate advantage to England, who assailed America and was defeated. She endeavored to crush the forces ot America, but America resisted, and America from rebellion obtained a revolution. England then wantml nyiiiafiillPff nf Ir^Ullil Slid* K.tfi not th*ll sufficient troops to support her demands and to maintain, it she were opposed, her connection with this country. Did Ireland then think of separating herself from England 1 Oh no, that was always a thought which wasforeign to the Irish mind. They sought not for separation, hut 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 was not prudent to treat Ireland with disregard. England willingly conceded those demands. In a letter written about that tune from the leader of the government were contained those words: "Will nobody stop that madman Gruttan ?" Nobody did attempt to stop the demands ol Grattan ; and the revolution of 1782 obtained for Ireland those rights which she laid claim to. Gentlemen of the Jury, it is part of history that the monarch ol that day, from the throne, declared this to be a final adjustment, and that there wus no rjuesnon left open for further discussion. It is a fact in history, that the English House of Lords, and ?he English House of Commons, had respectively declared that this was a final adjustment. The Lord Lieutenant front 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 1 I will come to that presently. I will show you, gentlemen, what the opinions ol certain statesmen were with respect to this subject. Charles James pox, in April, 1782, said "So far was lie from flunking that Great Britain had a right to govern Ireland if site did not choose to be governed by us, that he maintained that no country that ever had existed or did exist, had u right to hold the sovereignty ol another against the will and consent of that other." And in another passage, in May. 1782, he says?"lie desired gentlemen to look forward to that happy period when Ireland should experience the blessings that attend freedom of trade and constitution: when, by the ncnness ami leriiuiv 01 nor eon, me industry of her manufacture's, und the increase of tier population, she should become a powerlul country; then might England look, for powerful assistance to seamen to man her fleets, and soldiers to fight her battles. England renouncing all right to legislate far Ireland, the latter would most cordially support the former a? a friend whom she loved. If this country, on the other hand, was to assume the power of making laws for Ireland, she must only make an enetny instead of a friend, for where there was net a community of interests, there the party whoso interests were so sacrificed became an enemy."?2 vol. p. 00.? Such wus the principle upon which the great settlement was brought about. I would ask you, gentlemen of the jury, did you ever in your lives know a single individual volunteer of 1/82, who, to the last moment of his life, did not boast of haviug participated in the change that then took place.? It was clear that up to this time Ireland had preserved her allegiance and had gained tranquility in connexion with it?that she, in fact, clung with firmer hold to her connexion with England while she obtained those salutary results. I may he asked, gentlemen, whether I have any proof that the prophecy of Mr. Fox was realized, that the prosperity promised to Ireland had been actually gained by the legislative independence. I will left you upon what evidence I will demonstrate these facts. The first authority I shall refer you to is, Pitt in 1789, when proposing the tneusure of the Union. He should quote the following from the anti-Union Evening Post"Pitt's case at the Union would be strong if he could have shown tha Ireland wus declining and impoverished under her own Puliamer.t. But the facts were too powerful for him to wrestle with, and he was unable to meet them in that way. And what, therefore, was his reasoning. 'As Ireland,' he said, 'was so prosperous under her own Parliament, we can calculate that the amount of that prosperity will be trebled under the British legislature.' He first quoted a speech of Mr. Foster's, in 1786, in these words? The exportation of Irish produce to England amounts to two millions and a half annually, and the exportation of British produce to Ireland amounts to one million. He gives another quotation from Foster, in which it is said - "Britain imports annually $2,5<K),0<)0l. of our produce, all, or very nearly all, duty free, and we import almost a million tf tiers, and raise 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 1 (1799.) The tr?av ?t Ipw llilltt IS innnitely more advantageous to Trelaiur It will be proved from the documents I hold in my hand, nsfaras relates to the mere interchange of manufactures, that the manufactures exported to Ireland from Great Britain in 1797 verv little exceeded one million sterling (the articles rif produce amount to nearly the same sum); whilst Great Britain on the other hand imported from Ireland to the amount of more than three millions in the inanutacture of linen and linen yarn, and between two and three millions in provisions and cattle, besides corn and other articles ofproduce." You have heard proof of the prospei jly of Ireland from authority which cannot be uuestioned. We at that time exported three million s worth of linen and linen yarn, besides our exerts in provision, which amounted to u million and a half. What were our imports of English manufactured goods at that time 1 At half the amount of what we exported. How does the.case stand at present 1 You all know too well indeed ; I may say that some of you has had sad experience of the fact; that almost everything we use now is imported from England, and all our manufactures are gone, and our people who lived upon the wages which 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 wuges paid to the laborers and artizans employed ; and that money was ngain expended with the farmer and the shop-keeper: thus went on inrreuHnc comfort and prosiierity throughout the hind. But, alas! what is the case now? Wretchedness unci misery prevail where wealth and happiness once hud their abode. And should the man be punished who has no other object under Heaven but to restore his country to her former state?independ*nce and prosperity. 1 have given you the authority of Foster and I'itt, and I will now come to give you the authority of another man who never was very favorable to the Irish people, Lord Clare. Ilia lordship, in a speech made by him in 17WN, made use of those remarknhle words; and I beg to call your particular attention to them ."There is not," said his lordship, "a nation on the hahitahle'globe which has advanced in cultivation, civilization, agriculture, and manufacture with the same rapidity,in the same period,aelrelanu had,from 1772 to 1798." 1 will call your attention to Lord Grey's speech on the Scottish Union,in 1790. " In truth," said the nobleman, " for a pe riod of more than forty pears after (he Scotch Union, Scotland exhibited no proofs of increased industry and rising wealth." Lord Giey, in continuation, stated that?" Till after 1748 there was no sensible advance ol the commerce of Scotland. Several of wtturou H'l-rc not i>ul uhli aivorj fill uivfir yearn niter the Union, and her principal branch of manufacture was not wet up, I believe^ till 17sl ? The abolition of the heritable jurisdictions was the firnt Krcat measure that ^ave an impulse to the spirit of improvement in Scotland. Since that time the pros|>crity of Scotland has been considerable, but certainly net so Kre.it na tliaf vf Ireland has been within the some period " I will now refer you to Ix>rd Plunket, who, in in giving a description ot Ireland in a speech in Parliament in 1799; in one ot'his happiest efforts of orutory, speaks ot hsr as of " a little island with a population of four or #*e millions of people,hardy, gallant and enthusiastic?possessed of all the means of civilizatinnjagriculture, and commerce well pursued and understood: a constitution fully recognised and established ; her revenues, her trade, her manufactures thriving beyond the hope or the example of anv other country of her extent?within these Jew yeurH advancing with a rapidity astonishing even to herself; not complaining ot deficiency in these respects, but enjoying and acknowledging her prosperity (hear, hear ) She is called on to

surrender tlieni all to the control of?whom I Is it to a great and powerful Continent, to whom nature intended her as an up[ieiidage?to a mighty people, totally exceeding her in all calculation of territory or population 1 N'o! but toanother 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." At this stage of the proceedings, the Chief Justice said that the court was becoming so intolerably hot that one of the windows should be opened. "Mr O'Connbu.?Very well, my Lord, and I shall I take advantage of this opjiortunily to go out for a moment. The Court then adjourned 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 authorities, 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 pro?i>erity. You heard how in the year 1810, a meeting was heW in Dublin to petition for the Repeal ot the Union, which, at that time, was discussed also in the corporation and other plact-B. I will now read for you the sjieech of Mr. Mutton made at the corjioration?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 ti'?u in llie year 1782. We are reminded of i? at ihe present period' Tnen, as uow, oar merchants were without trade?our shopkeepers wnhout customers ?our workmen without employment?then, as now, it became the universal feelinsr, that nc.thing but the recovery of our righ's would save us. Our rights were recovered, ut<d how soon afterward', ind?ed, as it by magic, plenty smiled on us, and we soon b u tme prosperous and happy " Oen'lemen, in the year 1798, when the Union wastslked of, 'he,Binkers ot Dublin had n meeting, and in the chair was the h"?d of th-: Firm of Laiouche. That was on the 18th of December, 1798, when the following resolutions were passed?" Resolve d?That since the renunciation of Great Britain, iu 1782, to legislate for the commerce and proippriiy oi Ireland have eminently increased. gKesoived?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 being deceived), the relative increase in England and Ireland of the consumption of tea, tobacco, wine, sugar, and coffee, from 17S5 to the Union, which ia as follows:? Tea ...... Increase in Ireland 64 per cent. Increase in England 44 percent. From 1766 to the Union: Tobacco. . .Increase in Ireland 100 percent. Increaio in England 64 per cent. From 1767 to the Union: Wine Increase in Ireland 74 percent. Increase in F.ngland TO per cent From 1766 to the Union: Sugar . . . .Increase iu Ireland 67 percent. Increase in England 63 per cent. Coffee Increase in Ireland 600 percent. Increase in Englond 76 per cent. I hope to demonstrate, gentlemen, that there is no country can ever surpass in prosperity the advancement made by Ireland from the period of 1782 to the union. There is a iant word often used by niany people, "dismemberment of the empire," which I will prove to he an absurdity. Ireland with her own parliament, increased in prosperity, during her connexion with England; ana why should she require a dismemberment 7 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 Parliament, and as I fervently believe will aguin experience under her own domestic legislature. We lost ur own Parliament by means of corruption: the means were certainly those best suited to the nature of so dcletetiousan object,and everything that the worst passions could efiaet V?N arraigned to accomplish it. How was it carried 7 The Attorney General has referred to the report of a Secret Coninuttee of the House Commons, in '9f> and '97. I will now refer you to the rei>ort of the Secret Committee of the House of Lord, in 1791, wherein tt is stated that it was accomplished by 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. I A person named M'Uuane, attorney, ^ave informa- ' tion to the government: he waa a Colonel in the ' United Irishmen, as well as a county deputy. He * attended all t he meetings of the county deputies; ' and, oa the 4th of May, 1797, he Rot into the pay of ' government, and transmitted to them (through a 1 Mr. Clelland, agent to Lord Londonderry) the names of all |<ersons who attended,the returns made and the time and plane for the next meeting. So that tiie government was in full possession of th? entire proceedings, knew the names of the colonels and county deputies, and where tlicy were to be found at a particular time; so that if they had been so disposed tliry coulu have had them all arrested, , and thereby crushed the rebellion at once, but, i instead of doing so, they let it go on for the pur- i pose of carrying the Union. I will now refer you to another authority, which you will find in the life 1 of (rrattan, 2d volume, page 115, it is as follow*!? j The entire country roue against the measure; but : they were controlled and checked by the military, ! as well as the dissentions that existed amongst . themselves. Mr. I'lunket made use of these words: Pluuket?"I accuse ihe government of foment- , ing the embers of a lingering rebellion-, of halloo- i ing the Protestant against the Catholic, and the < Catholic against the Protestant; of artfully keeping j alive domestic dissensions for tha purposes of sub- ' jugation." It is manifest, therefore, that the Union ' was carried ugainst the will of the Irish people; and it j would have been much more manifest if tne people , Imd an opportunity of expressing their sentiments. | What were the words of Hurket "The basest cor- i ruption and artifice were exerted to promote the < Union. All the worst passions of the human heart 1 were enlisted in the service; and all the most ' depraved ingenuity of the human intellect tor- 1 ftired to devise new contrivances for fraud." ' Mr. Grattan thus reports the language of Lord Castlereagh in reference to the cor- ( ruption which might become necessary to carry the j Union; I will now lead a passage from a speech > made by Lord Grey in the year 1HOO, on the rrpug- i nance of the Irish nation to the Union s?" Twenty I seven counties," said his lordship, " have petition- t ed against the measure. The petition from 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 petitioned under j the great seal of the city, and eacn of the corpora tjons in it followed the example. Droglieda [>etitioned against the Union; and almost every other town in the kingdom in like manner testified its t disapprobation. Those in favor of the measure. ' professing great influence in the country, obtained a few counter petitions. Vet, though the petition from the county Down was signed by 17,000, the counter |?etifion was signed only by 415?though there were 707,000 who signed petitions against the measure, the total number of those who declured in favor of' it did not exceed 3,000, and many of these only prayed that the measure might he discussed. If the facts 1 state are true (nnd I challenge 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 legislative Union with Great Britain 1 In fact, the nation is nearly unanimous, uud this great majority is composed, not of bigots, fanatics, or jacobins, nut of the most resectable of every class in the community." Let me now request your attention to a description given by Lord 1'luuket, of the mode in which the Union was carried?"I will be bold to say that licentious and impious Krance, in nil the unrestrained excesses to which anarchy and atlieism have given birth to,has not committed a more insidious act against her enemy than is now attempted bv tne professed champion of the cause of civilised Lurooe against a friend and ally in the honrof her calamity and disttess?at a moment when our country is filled with British troops, when the loyal turn of Ireland are fatigued and exhausted by their efforts to subdue the re hellion?efforts to which they had succeed before those troo|M arrived?whilst the habeas corpus act was suspended?whilst trials bv court martial are carrying on in many parts of the kingdom?whilst the people arc taught to think they have no rglit to meet or to deliberate?and whilst the great body of them are so palsied by their fears, or worn down by their exertions, that uven the vital question is scarcely able to rouse them from their lethargy, at a moment when we are distracted by domestic dissensions, dissensions artfully kept alive as the pretext nf our present subjugation, anil the instrument of our future thraldom."?That is Lord Blanket's description of the means by which the Union was carried, and yet is only a partial account. t Hie million two imnorcn an? seventy-five thousand pounds were sjx;nt in pur- * chasing rotten boroughs. Three millions braid"* in hard cash w?re pnid in direct and actual bribery to persons who voted or their connexions. There was no oilier. even from the highest in the church, to the lowest in the constabulary?no,that force did not then exist?hut there wils no situation, from the highest to the lowest, sacred or profane, which was not in the market There was nothing of contract?nothing of argument in the carrying of the tTmon. all whs shnme less fraud and undisguised corruption, involving more of moral iniquity than ever accompanied any public transaction. Gentlemen oi the Jury, you can easily imagine what were the result of such a measure, ho carried; you feel theni in your daily avocations of busmeaa; you see them in the state ot your streets ; you know them from the position o. your trade and commerce. 1 have shown what lias been the general spirit of the Ktiglish government, whenever it had power, from date of the final settlement in 1732. 1 have established that there was an extraordinary advance in property under the Irish Parliament. I have shortly described the means by which the Union was carried, and I shall now; roceed.witli as inurh brevity, it" 1 can; but 1 fear at^reuier length that I could wisti to lay betore you evidence of tin* evil results of the Union as affecting Ireland. In 179-1 the Irish debt was only seven millions, the debt of Kngland at the Mine tune 36(1 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 bv a resolution oi the House of Cominons of Kngland, passed in 1H11, by which it was resolved that the asperate debt of Ireland should be churgcd with all the expense oi carrying the Union. Well, the Irish debt was 21 millions, the English, 416 millions. Oi the 17 millions of annual interest noon this sum, it was agreed that Ireland should not be charged any thing, lor the principal. Were those terms complied wiih I No. Ireland is charged with every penny of that 416 millions, principal and interest, in spite of the promises of Lord Custlereach; and the lands, the industry, the labor of the nation are mortgaged for its payment. As a proof of the total mismanagement of our iinances, detrimental to Ireland, and to show the progressive accumulation of our debt, I will reau an extract? "Half a million or more were expended some years Bince to break an opposition?the same, or greater sum, may be necessary now," and virattan added, "that Lord Castlereagli had said so in the most extensive sense of bribery and corruption. The threat was proceeded on?the peerage sold?the caitiffs of corruption were everywhere?in the lobby, in the streets, on the steps, and at the door of every parliamentary leader, offering titles to some, office to others, corruption to all." This is the way in which our affairs have been managed. The Irish Parliament had an interest in keepiog the Irish nation out of debt. The best proof of this is, that Ireland owed but 14 millions when Englund owed 350 millions, and only 21 millions when Kngland owed 446 millions. The Irish Parliament lias been often assailed; but 1 fearlessly ask, could anything have been more protective than to keep the people out of debt 1 Whilst tbc Er;glisli was squandering profusely, the Irish were thrifty ; but from the moment were placed under Lugland the proportion of increuse went on in such a maimer that w hilst it was for Kngland as 16 to 10, it was for Ireland as 43 to 10. Hear now the language 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 lie hud remonstrated against this scheme ; and had foreseen the evils resulting from it, of h beggarly gentry and a ruined peasantry.? Ireland had four millions of nominally increas?,i ...l:i_ .l i i r :i-j . _ . cu i.i.tcn, w It IIV* llic wtiuir l.llird US It system of revenue, and the people were burdened without any relief to the treasury. (Hear, hear.)? It would he found, as it was in some oilier countries, that the iron grasp of poverty had paralysed 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- I plies ; they hud drawn on capital?not income ; | and they, in consequence, reaped the harvest ot discontent, and failed to reap the harvest of revenue." 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. lie disclaimed any such intention, and now T ask you,could this occur in an Irish Parliament 1 What must have been the spirit of the assembly where it became necessary to disclaim, as something outrageous, atrocious, aud abominable, the idea of making Ireland the rival in irnde and manufacture ot England and Scollaudf Do you not, gentlemen, perceive ihe fatuity, the tolly of leaving your affairs to th<f management of those amongst whom it is considered a reproach to seek a rivalry with oihercouiiiries. Oh, this declaration sprukii trumpet tongued. 1 hope it wilj thunder in yourears and excite in your minds a spirit of just indignalionthat any Htlempt should be made, through ihe medium of a court of law, to prevent the uprising of that peaceful power ol public opinion which will procure lor our country a Parliament to legislate for ner interests. I shall now read an extract in reference to the proportion of the English and Irish debts You have seen how the Irish debt was kept down by the Irish Parliament; but in sixteen years after the Union the Irish debt had increased 230 (?rr cent., whilst the British in the same time only increuscd SO percent These facts are so little known, and <o much intervenes to prevent a knowledge ol them hat I feel delighted at the opportunity of again circulating tlient. (Laughter.) "Tlic enormous excess of British over Irish debt at the Puma lelt the Britiah minuter no excuse for their consolidation, and accordingly k was arranged that the two debts should continue to be separately provided for. The active expenditure of the empire (i. e. the expenditure clear of charge of debts) was to be provided for in the proportion of two parti from Ireland to fifteen for Ureut Uritain. These proportion* were to cease, the debla weie to be consolidated, and the two couatriei to contribute indiicrimi nately by equal taxei, ao mood at the aaid respective debts ihould tie brought to bear to each other the proportions of Ihe contributions?viz: as 2 to 15 ; provided alto that the udiiii) vi i ciMiiii anouiu i? ivuuu iw uavr, iccrt'UKfii. Now, the 3 to 16 rate of contribution was denounced at the lime by Irishmen ns too high for Irrdand, and afterward* 10 admitted by the British minister* themielve*. Ita conleqnence was, to exhaust and impoverish her to such a degree that her debt in sixteen years increased 330 per cent while the British only incuts ?d ?iC per cent. Thi- disproportionate and unjust increase of the Iriah debt brought the 3 to IA |>ro|iortion between it and the British dub Advantage ? ?? taken of that tinglf branch of the conlincncy onlttnplaled in the Union act, although the other bianr.n >f the contingency?viz: the increase of Ireland's ability nud not only occurred, but, by the confession of the Englists minister* themselves in IHiC, the very contrary had recurred? namely, Ireland had become poorer than before \dvantage, we say, was taken of that single brunch of :ho contingency to consolidate the dehta, to do away with *11 measure of proportionate contribution, and place the purse of Ireland, without res'riction or limit, in the hands at the British Chancellor of the Exchequer, thenceforward lo take fiom it, and apply as he liked, every psriny it did then and might at any future time contain, and rob Ireland ?f all chance of hern fit from any surplus of revenue thenceforward and forever hknkral simmer ok tasks sirnun or itHlTTts is urir.st britsix ash ihlia.su. (treat Britain. Ireland. ustoms ?7.929,067 ?686,300 Excise sm am stamps, 443,084 16f,fi09 ?ost Office 130 000 13,100 roperty Duty,. 14.0I7.H33 rVindows 1.A77 773 179,408 louses 360 000 A31,78 Hearth. lervants 473,Ofil 43.98.4 Carriages 391,796 71,l)M {ones 1,173.084 77,634 fog* 6,H76 ?41,096,303 ?1,604,311 The taxe* repealed or remitted in Ireland being one wenty-sixth part of '.hose repealod in (Jreat Britain " rheic figure*, gentlemen, will tell you that England increased the taxation of Ireland by four mlliious, and what ?aa the result 7? why, as was to bo expected, the actual -eventie fell upwards of AoO.OOOl , so thst the attempt to ax us four millions actually cost England one half a milion. They increased our debt 335 percent , while they ncreased their own only 60 per cent. Now, gen lemen, dlow me to ask you what prosperity can we expect, what irospe.rity can we have while we allow the management if our monetary affairs to be invested in the hands of tranger* 7 Can we be prosperous while the management .1 ?... MvonHA la in has hnit/la r?f thi* Knfllilh VAVvrtimi lli ' Vould xnv of you leave the management of your elixir* i) the hands of a *tranger?? or would you not ekf-oct that my man doing so would noon Ind himself a boggar ' A? t it with individual*, so it in with nation*. I may tie told hat there ha* horn n diminution of taxation. In*, gem lemen, there ho* hrnn a diminution ol taxation since the mace ; but, in what way ha* it heen <lon< / K.nglaml ha* lean relieved to the amount of 11 s.vi.uoul , while Iralaud la* obtained a diminution of her tax** to the amount of inly I.Mtt.OOOl , or in the proportion of one ouo-hall to 41. That, gentlemen, i* the juatire with which we have been mated Rut, gentlemen, thit i* not all, for by the change s bich was mad* in I AM in the currency of thecouutiy, hey added at leait one fifteenth to the debt* of Ireland, to much, gentlemen, for the juitice with which we have ?een treated l.et me aak yon, gentlemen, how can we iroa|ier while we allow the hands of other* to rummage ii our pocket* I An Iriah Parliament, while It would pay very shilling that ia honratly due, it would at tbu aama ime aave u? from the folly of paying that which i* due by England alone. Now. gentlemen, I mean to leave thia ait of the rase, ti luting that I have ahown j on the evil mercantile eltert* w hich the Union had on our common ountry, I will now, gentlemen, call your attention to ho protest of the lorda againat the Union. I will net vearv you by reading .ill the document I will content nvaelf with citing the 10th reaaon of the noble lorda, vnirh aaya, " Recutise when we conaider the weakness if thia V ingdom at the time that the meavure waa brought orward, and her inability to withatand the dsratiuctne leaign* of the miniater, and coupled with the act itaell he meana that hare Wen employed to accompliali it. ?ticli ia the ahuae of the place hill, for the purpose of corrupt ng parliament, the appointment of ahrrilfa to prevent Oiltity meeting*, the dismissal of the old atedlaat fnenda d constitutional government. for their adherenOO to the onatitution. and the return of persona into pailiament vho had neither connexion nor stake in the country. and vem therefore selected to decide ii|>on tier late w lien w e lonsider the armed Inrcr ol th* minister, addtd to h a tower and pvaeticr* of corruption when we couple the?e kings together, we are warranted to iRy that the h.iae-t nv*m have lieeu used to accomplish 'hi* great in nova ion, and that the measure of t nion lends to dishonor the incienl pen age lor ever to dismember both homes ol yailiament, and aubjugute the people ol Ireland forever Hitch cirouinitalic, a, wc apprehend, will be recolb O'ed with nbliorrence, and will create jealotuy between the wo nations, instead ol that harmony which for ?o many enturies has hern the cement of their union.'' This pro**t, gentlemen, was signs-d. I^inater, Mr-nth t harlemirnt, kc and by the Bivliopv ol Down and l.ltmore. This i* the authentic declaration ot the pweia ot that day ; and Isel certain that their deacendanl* at the pretrnt day man he proud of the deed of their ancestor*, and that they Witt yet assist in carrying out the intention* of their ar,contort and yet take their seat* in their place* in tollegogreen. Amongst the other evil* to which the Union gave ri?e, none was no oppressive ** the total in adequacy el the representation of Ireland in the Imperial Legislaterea and the great deliciency of voter* created by the si ate <A the regwtry. | am the more anxien* ta point out thi# delect, became I find that there it now a diapeaitien te concede upon the point They are now willing to tin something in re.pict to the franchise; but 1 i me ask how long hat the injustice been allow ed to exir I Let me tatt your attention to the following durum*.. and it ipeahe t.i.&iunu mjusllCl".? " rin?T Ri wrt on inr r m *sc hisk ih covhtiii " The result ol llie injustice don* tu the oplc o; i calami by the restriction of the elective franchise, in mad* manifest by a contrast between the papulation of the se.va iai counties in Kngland, and the number of reentered voters therein. with the population and number of registered vo!er? iu the different lush counties We take out statement of numbers from the parliamentary paper*, and by comparing the ieOJt populoua counties in tlnuUiiwl with the moat populoua in Iieland?WaatmorrUnd and Cork, loi instance? we find the following result1 ha rural population of Westmorland la 48 4*4, and ita number of registered voter* olter the reform oat, amounted ta 4.393. Nearly one out of every ten iahabitanta. Where as, in the county of Cork the population la 70i.716, and the number of elector* registered alter tbo lri?h reform act, waa only 3.836, being scarcely ona out of every twn hundred ol tho inhabitants " We uik, therefore, it this to be endured T " Here i* Westmoreland, with leas than oao-fonn?<mth of the population of Cork, and yet it baa an absolute majority of 3.V7 registered voter* ! la thin to be called reform 1 " Again, take the county of Bedford, with a rurul p?f>wlation of 18,634 inkubitanU; it* registered voters under the reform set were 3,900, whilst Antrim, with a population of 310,909, had only 3.487 regiitared voters?that is, Bedlord hod an absolute mntoiity of ae?r MM voters over Antrim, notwithstuniling the euoruioua dispioportion in the number of its inhabitants. " Hertford, with a population of 96.977 inhabitants, had 5 813 legisteri <1 % oteri; while Uolway, with Ml.3414 inhabitants, hail only 3 061 elertora. " Kiitlandahire. the smallest county fci England, with only 19 386 inhabituntH, had 1,390 voters, while Longford had only 1.394, absolutely two lest than Rutlandshire "Again, Huntingdon, with a population of 47,779 inhabitants, hail 2,647 voters; while Donegal,with a populatsoas of '3?9,149, had only 1.448 voters; and Limerick, one of the wealthies counties in Ireland with an opulent ctiltural population ol 348,901 inhabitants, hail only 2,306 electors. " Nay, even the Isle of Wight, with only 38,731 in hum taut*, liad 1,107 voters, while Mayo, with 3041 338 in hah) touts hail only 1.340 voters, and Protestant Tyrone, with a population of 310,OliO inhabitan t, had only 1,161 elector^ absolutely 10 voters less than the Isle of Wight " The Island of Angleaea also, with a population -^Joiuv 33.609 inhubltautK, had 1,187 voters; w Info Kili'^je with 108.438 inhabitants, had only 1,113 votara: a ad Ktrry with 36'- 130 inhabitants, had only 1,161 Thiers. Juati 30 voters lets thau the Anglesea, and six tna than the Isle of Wight. | - - -urn " liven if we compare the largest eountlealn both covin tnea, Vorkshire, with an agricultural population of 913,73ft Inhnhitanta, and Cork, with a |>opulatiou of 703,710. w? ? i ti.o Knglish county had S3,1M eloctem, while the Irish one had only 3,386. " We find, therefore, that F.ngland, in her rural population of 8 330,000 inhabitants, had 344.6411 county votrro. while Ireland, in a similar proportion el 7,027,*00 iubabf tants, hail only 00,0U? regiitered elector*. SI.COKD Rl.rORT ON Till! FH 4NCHIIE IN CITIM tKD TutrlM " The ron*cquence of all the*e defect* in the Irlah reform art in, (but the dinnrojiortiou between the number of elector* In KnglUh ami lruli citif* and lioioughi, when compared to the relative population, ia a* great a* in the counties. Kor we find from the tame returna that, after the reform net, Kxeter, with a population of 27,032 inhabitant*, had 3,420 voter* ?Hull, with 3.1,746 inhabitants, had 4,27ft electors- while Wateriord. with a population of #A,821 inhahitanta, had only 1,278 ulectors, txang in the ratio of 3 to 1. "Again, comparing thelargest cltiea and borough* in Ireland, w ith the smaller yne.t in England, are And tb* following ivftults:? "lVoicetter, with n population of 27,318 inhabitant*, ha? 2,Con voter*, while Limerick, with a population cf ttO.&Al inhabitant*, lin* only 2,8fiO elector*. " (theater, with only 21,303 inhabitant*, ha* no lea* than 2 231 voter*, while Bedfast, the wealthiest and noit commercial city iu Ireland, with ftS.OOO inhabitant*, had only 1,926 elector*. " The city of Cork, with 110,000 inhabitant*, bad only 3 flftO elector*, Including tiie nonreiidvnt freemen, while Newcaitlc-upon-Tyne, with a population of 42,280 inht hitant*, had 4,9ft2 voter*. Preston, with a population el 33.112 inhahitanta, had 4,204 elector*- both of there more than fork, which la?t city ha* more than treble the numberof inhabitant* ot either of the other twa; and Bristol, w ith 104 338 inhabitant*, not niual to the population oT fork, ha* 10.347 voter*, bring throe time* the constituency of the Irish city. ' If, too, we compare the smaller borough* ia both conntrie* together, we find that thoae which barely escaped chedtile A. with population* varying frotn 2 to 3.000 in habitant*, have more elector* than the borough* in Ireland retained by the Act of Union, with from 10 to 12,000 in habitant*. " Kor example, Wallingford, Launceiton, Werohare, Arundel, have all under 3,000 inbuliitaiiU, while the rl*c total constitnence* iu all exceed SOtlvitera However in Athlone and Uandon, with over lo.utlti inhabitant* in each, the voter* do not oxeeed'lftO, and in many other*, such a* Kintal*, Coleiaine, and New Rosa, the available comtifv ency (all* far ?hort of 200 voter*.' " If also we compare the metropolitan cotintituencim ol both countries, w here an eauality in household value may be expected, w e will find Unit Dublin, with a )?>pulation of 210,WHi inhabitant*, bad only ? 081 votera. iucluding aU the bad freemen lately manufactured by thoCorporation, while th* city of London, with a population of only 122, uw iniiauiianis. nan io,ni? electors, ana only ll.vio houses above 101. value. Nothing ran mote clearly illustrate the disadvantage* under which th?* IrUh cities lat or, with respect to the 101. household franchise, than the comparison of the uum ber ol house* of 101. a year clear value in London, and the number of elector* upon that qualification, with the number oi *imilar bouse* in Dublin, and of similar (Mm "Them' fact* appears from parliamentary return*. The nnmberof 101 houses in the city of London are 17 MA, and the number of electors appear to be IH 664 ; whilst m Dublin, the number of bouse* of 101 value, according to Sherrard's valuation, amounted to 14.106, while the number of elector* only amount to 9.0H1. Thus in the city of London, there are more elector! than 191. household) ra, whereua in the city of Dublin the aggregate of electors doei not amount to within one-third of the number of 19L heusokoldsn," " wii r.t coMrsarn with ili.naa. " Wale* hue a population of eOO.OOU. In Cork the rural population Is 71.1,714. Ho* are they respectively repre*eiited .' Wales ha* tw enty -eight memhera , Cork, w ith neatly the tamo population, ha* hut two. " Mere ii a parlinmentai y pa pet, it wrn published in 1H31, and tl.c sessional number is 904 It states the relative amounts of the V.ngllsh, Scotch, Welsh, and Irish revenue in that year, snd there is no similar paper of n later date that 1 am aw ate of? The Irish retentle was X4.3M.0U0 The Welsh revenue was 148 900 This is the exhibition w hich the return makes of what the hon member considers tlie superior w oalth of the priori pility of Wales. That principality, in point of fact, ialle below Ireland in any of those pretensions to represents | tion founded upon wealth. I have looked into theairounto ol the revenue collected in the single port of Cork, anc! they exceed that aI the principality ol Wales There are rio annual records to be referred to in such a case, but 1 iirvl that in on* year uie custom* in i.ur* incunmi 10 X'M MM), ?n?l that in another year the i xcii* amounted to ? 371,000 These amount* Rive. I believe, a fair average view oftha revetine collected in the part of Coik, and their total i? ?>Sg6.000. The receipt* of Wale* arc only ?34*.0(H) Cork, then, i* entitled to more member* than the entire principality of Wale*, on theie very ground* on which Ureal Britain juatifle* her overwhelming numerical superiority in the House of Common* If Walra have not a representation disproportions^) to her wealth, Cork ought to return 1.3 meiuher* to Parliament '' The honorable mid learned gcntliman having closed hi* *|>eech, thu Court adjourned to ten o'clock tomorrow. Fair {Jamk '?Mrs. Folly M. Woodcock of Lowell, hae petitioned to the " t ienerHl Court" of the old Bay Mate lor |>ermi??ion to call herself Mra. Mary M. Wood II set-ins that Woodcock* are not allowed to ho caught during certain month* in the year in Ma**achu sett* and ns the petitioner ii a yocng and pretty widow, he doesn't like lo have a mare name the obstacle in the way ol her happiness - \rtr Tlartn Courier. Tmti t.r Miktii ?The wife ol Hannibal Stone, of Uismout, Muinc, last Wednesday morning gave birtL to three good sl/nd 1 ankee toys, and all doing well. Sixtiri.ak Tastk.?An Lngliah gentleman ?>f runcation, and, no far as we know, ol irreproachable character, li ft England some eighteen months fince, with the intention of pending so-ne years in a solitary cell in one of our prison* lie applied at the Eastern Penitentiary, hut Whs denied admission He insisted upon a place in the cells and while he averred that be abhorred the ilea of committing a crime, stated that he would do so to insttr* the accomplishment of his withe* lie was, of ?our*e, arrested upon his threat, and required, by the Mayor, to give hail. In default of hail he wts committed to th? Moyameusing prison, where be has remained for thtrfaos month* The prison .toer* sre, and have long bean opan od to him, hut he refuses to l?*ve his cell, and, as hi* daily Ifttior supports him. he is permitted to remain. II# is in the full possession of hi* ficultle*; is cheerlnl, and performs *11 the U'or of ?n ordinary convict. Bat though i i,il?\ nt the loom, he nanm-i Hi* mathematic al ami other udiet with great i>er?everanc? and auergy. lie fon* rr?e? wIth grant intelligence and iiohv omly, from i duration anil amoeiation, a gentUe nmn. Thl* l? ningular irutanre of voluntary ami ?elf. Inflicted penaiiee, If ?urh it he, an I the ami-factton w Inafc |i nerm* to ronler upon it" auhject, nrovea that the plineof th'it eacellent in?titution la tar from cruel. ? Phil idrtphia Forum. somnn c?k I'ahi.mmi nt.?The beliefneem* to gain gftnind that the neat Ueaaion of rarliameat will be h*M ut king'ton The cauao ariaea Irom tha impaaaibility ol obtaining aiiitahle pn-ml?ca at Montreal to rarrjr on the machine of t Internment, on any thing like reaaonahlo t#rm? Itentt have riarn maat cnormoualy. Tha Montreallera complained that the Klngaton landlord* ahmad the Johnny Newromra, lint It appear*. that when thay have the chance, th# extortion* ot Montreal hear no compariaon With thoae of thl* good town Thay go 'ho whole ling there w ith a vengeance I'flOO per annum for a mnerahle ?hi?nty, three mile* from; the city ton (Co ) IHi?, wore A ft. I'oi.mra n* Cavaim.-?'Th#eilifor ol the King*-, ton J*tHtprniun Mute* that Mr. Mrmlt, Mr. MiceJ, Mr Rn.w.ll Mr Itntdin .md other M V V* from Upper ('nnmln, who formerly aupporfcl the Into Mlnntry, nnv* niKinAtd their intention of adhering for th* future to Sir t na*. Metcalfe. Hmai.i. I'd* Tlii- l?mtlis<>mr and ilr?adt<l ihseaat, -?> the l.ouiirille Journal, it nI) around u? it? nriKlitxiMiig town*, ati.l we may toon expect it in outcity l'.rcrybody ?houl' race innate without delay

Other newspapers of the same day