IRELAND’S CASE, 
 
 DISEASE AND REMEDY, 
 
 RESPECTFULLY STATED 
 
 TO THE PEOPLE, THE LEGISLATURE, 
 
 AND 
 
 THE ARISTOCRACY 
 
 OF THE BRITISH EMPIRE, 
 
 THE LfORART 
 OF THE 
 
 . OKiVERSirr OF IlLiSOIS 
 
 BY JOHN A. O’NEILL, ESQ., 
 
 OF BUNOWEN CASTLE, 
 
 Ex-J. P., 
 
 FORMERLY, MEMBER FOR KINGSTON-ON-HULL. 
 
 “ Le contrat du Gouvernment est tellement dissous par le despotisme, que le despote n’est 
 maltre qu' aussi longtemps qu’ ii est le plus fort et sitot qu’ on pent P expulser il n’ a point £ recla- 
 m er contre la violence.” 
 
 Rousseau. 
 
 Errat longS me£ quidem sententia 
 
 Q,ui imperium credit gravius esse aut stabilius 
 
 Yi quod fit, quam illud quod amicitia adjungitur. 
 
 Terence. 
 
 DUBLIN: 
 
 PUBLISHED. BY JAMES DUFFY, 25, ANGLESEA-ST. 
 
 LONDON: W.‘STRANGE, PATERNOSTER-ROW. 
 
 1844. 
 
 Price—One Shilling and Six-pence . 
 
 T 
 
A 
 

 IRELAND’S CASE, 
 
 DISEASE AND REMEDY, 
 
 RESPECTFULLY STATED 
 
 TO THE PEOPLE, THE LEGISLATURE, 
 
 AND 
 
 THE ARISTOCRACY 
 
 OF THE BRITISH EMPIRE, 
 
 BY JOHN A. O’NEILL, ESQ., 
 
 OF BUNOWEN CASTLE. 
 
 Ex-J. P., 
 
 FORMERLY, MEMBER FOR KINGSTON-ON-HULL. 
 
 “ Le contrat du Gouvernement eat tellomcnt dissous par le despotisme, que le despote n'est 
 rnaitre qu’ aussi longtemps qu’ il estrle plus fort et sitot qu' on pent 1’ expulser il n’ a point a recla- 
 mer contre la violence.” 
 
 Rousseau. 
 
 Errat longe mea quidem sententia 
 
 Q,ui imperium credit gravius esse aut stabilius 
 
 Yi quod lit, quam illud quod amicitiSi adjungitur. 
 
 Terence, 
 
 DUBLIN: 
 
 PUBLISHED BY JAMES DUFFY, 25, ANGLESEA-ST. 
 
 LONDON: W. STRANGE, PATERNOSTER-ROW, 
 
 1844. 
 
 Price—One Shilling and Six-pence. 
 
r 
 
 TRANSLATION OF MOTTOES. 
 
 “ The contract of Government is so far dissolved by despotism, that the despot is master only 
 while he is the stronger : the moment he can be expelled he has no right to complain of the violence 
 of that step.” Rosseatj. 
 
 “ In my opinion, it is an error to suppose a government supported by force to be more powerful 
 and more durable than one sustained by friendship.” Terence. 
 
 ✓ 
 
 I 
 
 V/> 
 
 O 
 
 G3 
 
 o 
 
 £ 
 
 cz 
 
 o 
 
 03 C 
 > cr> 
 *4= CO 
 
 ^ C/3 
 
 § 5 
 
 ~ 3 
 
DEDICATORY PREFACE. 
 
 ♦- 
 n 
 u 
 
 >3 
 re 
 
 J 
 
 Cl 
 
 The following pages are respectfully inscribed to the* 
 three Estates of the Empire—the People, the Legisla¬ 
 ture, and the Aristocracy. 
 
 To the People, because it is a received opinion that 
 a temperate statement of their wrongs, however deficient 
 in talent the writers may be, contributes to awaken general 
 sympathy, and to cement between fellow-subjects a friendly 
 feeling, based on the Christian precept—brotherly love, as 
 well as on the worldly maxim—community of interest. 
 
 It is necessary to allude to the Ministry and to the 
 representative body, because the common weal is in so 
 great a degree dependant on their measures. 
 
 Talent, birth, station, wealth and title are the head¬ 
 ings of the classes which constitute the Aristocracy. 
 Without including worth, the term aristocracy is a mis¬ 
 nomer ; but worth, though not as a matter of course a 
 component part of what is called (worldly) greatness, is 
 an occasional adjunct to it; the Peerage and untitled 
 Aristocracy of the Empire, to the honour of both, afford 
 some noble specimens of a union between virtue and 
 rank. 
 
 Every soundly-based and fair privilege of an order 
 (the Aristocracy commencing with the Sovereign) which 
 includes many eminent and truly worthy persons, should 
 be scrupulously respected. Happily this can often be 
 done without infringing popular rights; but all just- 
 minded men will admit, that wherever they clash, the 
 former should give way; for the welfare and happiness 
 of the MULTITUDE depend on the possession of those 
 rights—and of them there should be no compromise what¬ 
 soever. 
 
 |) 56611 
 
 (t 
 
As it has been repeatedly asserted in print that u no loyal 
 man would join the Repeal Association”—the writer, 
 without professing* any more loyalty than ninety-nine out 
 of every hundred Repealers possesses, thinks it right to 
 state, that before any person in the empire suggested or 
 spoke of any measure for the better protection of the So¬ 
 vereign (after the fourth alarm), he published in the Dub¬ 
 lin papers the outline of a bill, headed “for the better 
 protection of the Queen,” and containing clauses to meet 
 every possible case of aggression on her Majesty. He 
 coupled with this publication a letter to Sir R. Peel. He 
 handed a printed copy to the private secretary of the Lord 
 Lieutenant, Earl De Grey, and forwarded copies to Sir 
 R. Peel, Colonel Anson, Sir H. Wheatley, and Sir James 
 Graham. Every official personage but Sir J. Graham 
 courteously acknowledged the receipt of these documents $ 
 and Colonel Anson did the writer the honour to say, he 
 was instructed by Prince Albert to express his Royal 
 Highness’s thanks. 
 
 Some days afterwards Sir R. Peel gave notice in the 
 House that he would shortly bring in a bill “ for the 
 better protection of the Queen.” He did so, and used 
 the very term the writer gave the bill, and included in it 
 several of the clauses the writer drew—preserving even 
 his words. It is not, however, to be admitted that any 
 man who was not a Minister of State could, by possi¬ 
 bility, see that which had escaped the notice of cabinet 
 eyes. 
 
 “ Sic vos non vobis ” 
 
CHAPTER I. 
 
 THE PROPHECY—THE DIFFICULTIES—THEIR CAUSE—THE REMEDY- 
 
 THE CRISIS-PERIL OF POSTPONEMENT. 
 
 Sir Robert Peel said that Ireland would be the difficulty of 
 his government—it required no preternatural endowment to 
 foresee this, for he worked out his own prophecy. He knew the 
 consequences of misrule, and calculated on the course which a 
 majority of his colleagues would oblige him to pursue; he was 
 aware of the long list of sins, of omission and commission, all his 
 predecessors could be charged with; and whether he felt a deficiency 
 of moral courage, or calculated on a want of political influence, 
 he arrived at the conclusion, that he should not be able either to 
 atone for the past, or amend as to the future : he had not sufficient 
 of the Hercules in his composition to turn a pure stream into the 
 Augean State Stable. Sir Robert’s difficulties cannot be traced 
 to the Irish people, but to misgovernment of them. As well might 
 the West Indian planter, of old, charge his slaves with generating 
 the yellow fever, after he made them toil under a scorching sun. 
 
 When Sir Robert took office, he found Ireland calm but not 
 happy; solvent—not prosperous; despondent—not hopeless . Only 
 a few years elapsed, and calm gave place to excitement; sol¬ 
 vency verged towards bankruptcy ; and slender hope is succeeded 
 hy utter despair. The Right Honourable Baronet’s administra¬ 
 tion is far from being answerable for all the grievances of Ireland, 
 he has only increased the list. If the present crisis be perilous to 
 the empire, his government is responsible for that; for matters 
 could not have arrived at a crisis had pains been taken to avert it 
 by prompt measures, at once bold, just, conciliatory, popular, and 
 absolutely expedient Yes, expedient—for the days of exclusive 
 oligarchic power are numbered in both nations; the People must 
 soon, very soon, obtain their legitimate weight—in neither do they 
 now possess it. 
 
 If any man used seditious language, why did the law slumber 
 or the Executive connive? The first offender was responsible 
 for his own offence, but the Government which allowed it to pass 
 unnoticed became responsible to public justice and to society for 
 the crime of the second offender. Was Mr. A’s culpability 
 greater because Mr. B used the same expression, or Mr. C re¬ 
 ported it in his paper ? Why was not the first offender put on 
 his trial before a jury of his countrymen for his first offence ? 
 Thus would the spirit of the Constitution and of the law have 
 been borne out; for the offence would have been met in that 
 
 B 
 
2 
 
 stage where, whilst punishment might have been nominal, the 
 warning would have been effectual. 
 
 Was the first monster meeting an abuse of constitutional li¬ 
 berty ? an assumption of a non-existing right ? or an aggression 
 on the public peace ? If it were any of these why was it not in¬ 
 stantly noticed by a suitable and monitory proclamation to pre¬ 
 vent a recurrence of the misdemeanor? A hundred naughts 
 cannot make a unit, and a monthly repetition could not convert 
 into illegality what was not illegal. 
 
 This Government has a right to atone to the people and 
 gentry of Ireland, for suffering them to be drawn into an agita¬ 
 tion which it considered, and determined to brand and punish as 
 petty treason. The Government cannot do too much to evince 
 its contrition and to conciliate and serve the People, thus—if 
 their own statements be true—doubly betrayed; betrayed, says 
 the Government, by their leaders, who taught them to seek an 
 impossibility, or, if possible, a ruinous measure, through the perils 
 of indictment, in the path of rebellion; betrayed, say the en¬ 
 lightened of both the Old and New World, by the Government 
 which would neither interpose good practical measures to wean 
 the people from seeking visionary ones, nor use the authority with 
 which it was invested to check a career now characterized by it as 
 leading to revolution. 
 
 It is to be lamented that the Prime Minister did not allow his 
 prophetic inspiration somewhat a wider scope: it would have told 
 him that the time approaches when there will be no choice—that 
 he could only postpone the hour of payment to the people at great 
 risk ; with the probability that the demand would increase , and the 
 certainty that it could not diminish . Had he, instead of trusting to 
 an ignis fatuus, consulted the oracles of justice and prudence, they 
 would have taught him something more than that he would be “in 
 difficulties.” They would have shown him how to extricate him¬ 
 self; they would have inculcated the necessity of placing the Re¬ 
 presentation of Great Britain and Ireland on such a footing, that 
 the people would feel themselves represented; and instead of being 
 obliged to form into Unions , Leagues , Associations , Societies , and 
 Conventions , [they] would have confidence in the great representative 
 body , and would look on the Imperial Parliament as the sole court of 
 appeal , tribunal for redress , and fountain of justice. 
 
 All the laurels of the Reform Bill were ungathered, and 
 would have wreathed the brow of the Minister, who, though at 
 first opposed to it, yet finding it the law of the land, had the 
 magnanimity to give that vitality to the principle which the 
 framers of the act omitted to bestow— extension of the Franchise 
 (perhaps even ballot) must eventually take place ; but if England 
 now complains of limits in her franchise, is not Ireland’s case an 
 outrage on all decency ? and if this administration did not choose 
 
3 
 
 to purify on a great scale, surely they cannot pretend to think that 
 there was no room for improvement, and that nothing should 
 have been done for long*-misgoverned Ireland. 
 
 Another matter, of the utmost importance, was left unnoticed; 
 a manly, unequivocal, and impartial line of policy in dealing 
 with sectarian agitation had become necessary, if it were only to 
 prevent the time of the Legislature and of the Government from 
 being absolutely prostituted in discussing matters which grow 
 out of sectarian squabbling and jealousies—to prevent, in fact, 
 the interruption of public business and private industry. But a 
 far more weighty consideration should have directed the attention 
 of a Government to this subject—-it was one that involved the 
 peace of the Empire. Yet here, again, the same tortuous line of 
 policy w r as pursued; always trifling with effects; never dealing 
 with causes; indicting Priests and laymen for being agitators 
 and repealers, and coquetting with agitating Parsons, and 
 that anti-catholic Repeal party,* which by torrents of exas¬ 
 perating insults to the fondly-cherished national religion, goad 
 into agitation and into the advocacy of extreme measures several 
 of those Priests, and many of those laymen. It is not asserted 
 that this was the origin of agitation for Repeal, but it has an 
 effect on it, and has added to the Repeal Association many per¬ 
 sons who otherwise would not have mixed in politics, as un¬ 
 questionably a domestic legislature would, without any infringe¬ 
 ment on Protestant freemen’s rights , have checked the abuse 
 alluded to, and have prevented decency from being outraged. 
 
 There was another sin of omission, as related to the people of 
 Ireland. It is true that the Exchequer was not rich when this 
 government took office—true that it had to pay for the popu¬ 
 larity of its predecessor, and to make good defficiencies not created 
 by its own measures. It is also true that there exists considerable 
 (but not comparative) distress in England as well as in Ireland. 
 Still, an outlay of public money in Ireland is a debt long due, 
 and should be paid. It would not have been money wasted ; it 
 would have compensated for any sacrifice made to obtain and ex¬ 
 pend it in national works here—it would have most amply remu¬ 
 nerated the Imperial Jand. 
 
 Ireland never asks from England any outlay for fancy or or¬ 
 namental purposes, though England cares not for her consent 
 when she lays out millions thus, herself, for such works—works 
 which do not return to the empire at large one farthing profit; 
 Ireland will show a return of quadruple the English rate of inte¬ 
 rest for any capital England will expend here. But even if there 
 were not great and immediate gain, is the Government to say 
 
 * Protestant petitions for the Repeal of the Catholic Emancipation Act are 
 prepared, and the Government lias been addressed by these Repealers ; but this 
 Repeal agitation is tolerated. 
 
 B 2 
 
4 
 
 that they never will assist in alleviating distresses or in develop¬ 
 ing resources in the Irish part of the empire, unless they get usu¬ 
 rious interest, if not prompt repayment? Let individuals say 
 they subscribe when there is a famine,* and soldiers prime and 
 load when wretchedness ceases to be torpid ! Would there be no 
 direct return to the public treasury by governing so as to render 
 unnecessary a standing army, now kept up at the enormous ex¬ 
 pense of millions ? The British Government soon found twenty 
 millions to pay for a change in the condition of the lower classes 
 in the West Indies a few years ago—money sunk without one 
 penny of return. No doubt it was a most benevolent outlay, but 
 there was no destitution in that case; not one pauper (according 
 to the spirit of the word) in those islands, and the whole slave 
 population did not in numbers amount to a fourth of the poor of 
 Ireland, whose privations and distresses are incomparably greater. 
 The aged and infirm, too, were provided for. In Ireland there 
 are above two millions of paupers, multitudes of able-bodied un¬ 
 employed men, and some millions of acres of reclaimable land 
 lying waste. Irish distress had a decided claim to more imme¬ 
 diate attention. 
 
 This Administration took office when there was a great strain 
 on Irish patience, and it had been long fine-drawn ; still the 
 history of the last ten years, and, above all, a knowledge of the 
 good temper and patience of the people of Ireland, establish the 
 fact that they would not have pressed for any extreme measure, 
 if some moderate ones, really useful to them had been brought 
 forward. It might almost be said, if a reasonable hope had 
 been held out to them, that such would have been taken into con¬ 
 sideration !! and that their complaints would have been enquired 
 into!!! Yet even this was flatly refused when Mr. 
 W. S. O’Brien’s motion was negatived by a ministerial majority. 
 
 No Government of the present day can have any valid excuse 
 for ignoring the popular bills of grievances. They are well aware 
 that the people complain, and that there is even more than a 
 prima facie case for investigation—that there is a clear one for 
 redress. The people seek not to retaliate past injuries but to re¬ 
 move a painful existing pressure. This is demanded by a voice 
 which cannot be silenced, and by a class with which it may be 
 dangerous any longer to trifle. 
 
 * The benevolence of the English people to every nation in distress, whether 
 from war, famine, or any visitation of Providence, is universally and gratefully 
 acknowledged. 
 
CHAPTER II. 
 
 PRECURSORISM-PREMIER’S COLLEAGUES—HIS FIRST SELF-CREATED 
 
 DIFFICULTY-THE DUKE OF WELLINGTON-—LORD STANLEY-SIR 
 
 J. GRAHAM-THE TORIES OF 1829 -IS IT TOO LATE? 
 
 The present Government entered into power, whilst the echos 
 of the warning voice of the Precursor Society were vibrating on 
 official ears. That voice placed repeal as an extreme alterna¬ 
 tive.—The terms were “ Justice or Repeal,” in other words,, 
 “ do justice to us, or let us do justice to ourselvesthere was 
 an offer from a whole nation to abandon an indictment for a noto¬ 
 rious fraud (the Act of Union so carried), which if prosecuted be¬ 
 fore Europe and America, must be followed by a verdict for the 
 plaintiff; and not only an offer to abandon, but to consign the re¬ 
 collection of it to oblivion on the easy terms of instalment re¬ 
 payments from the successors of those who deprived them of their 
 rights. Probably this offer may not be made again on terms so 
 easy.* 
 
 Sir Robert Peel had full opportunities of knowing exactly how 
 far each person whom he called to office, would travel with him 
 on the popular road—so that the first of his difficulties may be 
 called a domestic one, for he summoned around him some of the 
 most unpopular of the Whigs, and least moderate of the Tories. 
 
 Lord Stanley, high in character, eminent in talent; in youth 
 the distinguished soldier of constitutional liberty—in maturer life, 
 alas, its goaler—had been impitiably toying with the mutilated 
 remains of the Irish franchise, and created on this, and on other 
 occasions a very hostile feeling towards himself—-Lord Stanley’s 
 secession from the popular cause is a calamity. 
 
 * Perhaps Sir Robert Peel and some of his colleagues would have attended 
 t.o this appeal, were they not overruled. The writer cannot bring himself to 
 believe that Sir Robert Peel would be an unjust and illiberal minister, if asso¬ 
 ciated with a majority of liberal men ; perhaps too, he might again find a sup¬ 
 porter in the Duke of Wellington, were his Grace less guided by party con¬ 
 nexions, and less influenced by military habits. The writer recollects the 
 bitterness with which the parliamentary party he was associated with in 1829, 
 assailed these ministers, and how unflinchingly they adhered to the broad prin¬ 
 ciple of justice to seven millions, in preference. to adulation of a party. The 
 straightforward Repealers of Ireland would not respect a man who was unjust 
 to any class, especially towards a. party he long conscientiously acted with, 
 and as conscientiously retired from. The writer, therefore, takes this oppor¬ 
 tunity of asserting, that though the Anti-Catholic members of 1829 were 
 liable to the charge of prejudice, they were quite free from a stain of corruption. 
 They clung to principles which their leaders wisely deserted, and be it remem¬ 
 bered, that those leaders had power and patronage. They had placed Sir Robert 
 Peel and the Duke of Wellington in power, warmly supported them, and only 
 conscientiousness on bbth sides could have then separated ministers and minis¬ 
 terialists. The writer has always been of opinion, that a clever, but an old 
 ruse de guerre was played off against the anti-ministerial party of 1829, by giving 
 them a General from the enemy’s camp. He could give sound reasons for till* 
 opinion. 
 
Sir James Graham was differently situated, he had no popu¬ 
 larity to lose — he excited no expectations — disappointed no 
 hope, but the state of public affairs rendered it imprudent to 
 select a person for the most important office as regarded Ireland, 
 who had forfeited the confidence of his own party without ob¬ 
 taining* that of his quondam opponents. 
 
 The Duke of Wellington is undoubtedly one of the best, and 
 best rewarded general officers in the world, and a senator of 
 considerable ability ; but he has publicly turned his back on the 
 country he was born in. He is an Irishman by birth, his family 
 estates are in Ireland—and a third of the men whose last drops 
 of life-blood made a Duke of him, was Irish. The Duke of 
 Wellington has become unpopular in Ireland, because his Grace’s 
 name is associated with some measures much disapproved of by 
 that nation, and with vigorous opposition to others popular in the 
 empire at large; but his name is also coupled with one, the Catholic 
 Relief Bill, which would have made it easy for his Grace to take a 
 Yery high position in his country’s affections, had he not expressly 
 stated that he advocated that—a measure of justice—on the narrow 
 ground of expediency. There is also a strong feeling of pique 
 against the Duke, associated with great disapprobation of his 
 politics. The general peace was proclaimed twenty-nine years 
 ago, His Grace has resided during that time, within two days’ 
 journey of his native land, and was often within ten hours’ sail of 
 her, yet never paid his countrymen the compliment and respect 
 of a visit, though Irishmen had had so large a share in con¬ 
 tributing to his Grace’s elevation ! !! 
 
 The objections to other members of Sir Robert Peel’s cabinet 
 have been before the public : there may however be amongst the 
 present Government, and the official personages holding office 
 under it, materials for forming a prudent and possibly a not un¬ 
 popular administration. The same may be said of the Whigs.. 
 The Irish nation however, though prepossessed strongly against 
 certain personages in the cabinet, was prepared to think more 
 of government measures than of government members. The 
 people would have met, and, it is to be hoped, will yet 
 meet justice with cordiality, and kindness with gratitude—but 
 oppression will produce resistance, constitutional, as long as. 
 human nature should endure. A mixed government, how¬ 
 ever good might be the intention with which it was formed, 
 was not likely to work well. It could not possess the confidence 
 of any large class in Ireland. The Aristocracy is (generally 
 speaking) Tory; the people, now rather inclined to Radicalism. 
 There is also a considerable and highly respectable Whig party 
 composed of portions of the high Aristocracy, Gentry, and of some 
 of the people, but there were too few Whigs in this government 
 to secure to it Whig support, and to please the Irish Aristocracy 
 
7 
 
 as a body, Toryism should be Lord of the Ascendant. A full 
 Tory administration would be less embarrassed than any other in 
 bringing forward liberal measures, for its own party would bear 
 with any concessions made by a ministry so constituted; that is, a 
 full Tory one. The tory party can consistently oppose measures 
 which spring from the Whigs, but the Whigs could not, after such 
 strong professions, oppose liberal measures,'no matter what quarter 
 they came from. There are many objections to mixed govern¬ 
 ments; an unnatural coalition destroys the stimulant to popular 
 acts—opposition is the stimulant, and that being paralized by a 
 junction, each party, for fear of breaking a truce growing out of 
 necessity (it would be unfair to assume it to be a sacrifice of prin¬ 
 ciple), takes its stand on opinions which they had held in common, 
 and the opinions which Whigs and Tories hold in common, being 
 any thing but popular, measures grounded on them often savour 
 of the errors of both parties, without a solitary qualification ema¬ 
 nating from the better feelings of either. 
 
 Persons who write on political subjects should not take up* 
 their pens to comment harshly on individuals or to try to display 
 satirical powers in abusing Governments, it is as easy as con¬ 
 temptible to be bitter and rude. Writers should endeavour to 
 support principles not to point sarcasms. It should be the object 
 of all who love Ireland, who know the value of a constitution, 
 who revolt even from the idea of a reformation achieved by blood* 
 and from any system of government which can be upheld only by 
 periodical appeals to arms—it should be the first object of all 
 such, by petitions, by addresses, by writings, to endeavour to 
 rivet the attention of Government on the fact that, however per¬ 
 sons may differ on political or religious questions, Tory, Whig, 
 Radical, Catholic and Protestant, Aristocrat and Peasant, in an 
 immense majority agree that Ireland has grievances, and that 
 dealing by Proclamations, Indictments, or by force of arms, 
 with what is called sedition, should not be the sole occupation of a 
 Government having full knowledge of the notorious fact that these 
 grievances exist . 
 
 No Administration has acted by Ireland so as to be entitled 
 to propose conditions to her by way of a preliminary to j ustice— 
 
 JUSTICE SHOULD BE DISPENSED UNCONDITIONALLY-faVOr ma)' 
 
 demand terms. Ministers seem to know no mode of suppressing 
 discontent and its consequences—agitation—but by force. It 
 never enters into their plans to endeavour to diminish the agita¬ 
 tion muster-roll, by giving the people (not their leaders) some¬ 
 thing more solid to occupy them; they never try to undermine 
 popular discontent by justice or kindness, they generally prefer 
 gunpowder. Most Governments act on the principle of not re¬ 
 ducing the debt to the people, but of postponing the day of reck¬ 
 oning ; and when an instalment of tardy justice is wrung from 
 
the reluctant hands c. Ministers and their parliamentary followers, 
 it is hut too often rather of nominal than intrinsic value, marred 
 by the jealousy aristocracy ever entertains of popular power. Re¬ 
 pealers may be of opinion that it is almost too late for retail jus¬ 
 tice (certainly so for conciliation on any minor scale), nay, may 
 wish that Ministers, as they have forced them (the Repeal party) 
 into a struggle for a constitution, should remain in their present 
 disadvantageous position and continue their false manoeuvres 
 which must ultimately ensure a Repeal victory.* Such a con¬ 
 summation is indeed inevitable unless interfered with by either of 
 two events: the first is, the Government undertaking just, exten¬ 
 sive, prompt, and conciliatory measures; this is an improbable 
 contingency. The second is, by a wild attempt to achieve inde¬ 
 pendency by force. That is a rashness next to impossible under 
 
 THE PRESENT WELL-REGULATED SYSTEM OF THE ASSOCIATION. 
 
 But whatever might be the opinions of Repealers, a Govern¬ 
 ment should never decide that it was too late to be just. They 
 have no right to inquire with how much justice the people will be 
 satisfied—but what is due , and pay it. They might be assured that 
 they could never lose a point by acting thus; they would have 
 sound reason for firmly believing that the agitation of any 
 popular measure would be carried on temperately, and in the best 
 feeling, by the influence of just and paternal measures; they 
 might calculate to a certainty that all possible danger of outbreak 
 would be averted; and they might be sure of eradicating from 
 the minds of many, that hopelessness of redress which may have 
 created, in some> vague resolves to avail themselves of any embar¬ 
 rassments into which the Empire might be plunged, in order to 
 enforce then infinitely more than what they would have been con¬ 
 tented with if yielded to friendly remonstrance. 
 
 CHAPTER III. 
 
 TIIE MONSTER DIFFICULTY, AND MONSTER GRIEVANCE, AND MONSTER- 
 EVIL-BIGOTRY AND BRITISH SYMPATHY-BILLINGSGATE PROSE¬ 
 LYTIZING—SLANG DICTIONARY PIETY-CHRISTIAN CHARITY IN- 
 
 J CULCATED BY INSULT, AND CONVERSION FROM ERROR PROMOTED 
 BY GROSS ABUSE-REAL PRINCIPLES OF ORANGEISM. 
 
 As relates to the empire, the present Government had to grapple 
 with many difficulties, not of their own creation. Some were 
 entailed by their immediate predecessors who, as before stated, 
 
 * The writer uses the word ultimately, for he never was sanguine as to im¬ 
 mediate success, and differed widely from others, and considered and considers 
 success far more remote th,au_thcy did or do. 
 
9 
 
 enjoyed the popularity of certain measures for which this admi* 
 nistration was obliged to provide. 
 
 The awful evil, sectarian virulence, alluded to in the first 
 chapter, cannot be attributed to any Government, though they 
 are all responsible for not making vigorous exertion to check it. 
 Systematic outrages are perpetrated in the name of the law- 
 established religion on that of the nation. This is the bane and 
 curse of Ireland. This is the agitation which so often prevents 
 salutary measures from being dispassionately advocated by one 
 party, or calmly investigated, or reasoned on in friendly spirit by 
 the other. Sectarian animosity is the origin of almost every 
 feeling of wrath, of jealousy, and of suspicion, which separates 
 Irishman from Irishman, and Ireland from England. It is the 
 prolific parent of every thing calculated to rend the bonds of 
 society, mar national prosperity, and endanger not merely the 
 peace but the fate of the Empire. 
 
 It cannot be difficult to grapple with and crush any agitation 
 which is not founded on a real grievance; this could therefore 
 be checked. It springs from one of three causes—great preju¬ 
 dice, vicious bigotry, or motives of self interest. It is always a 
 good plan to take the most charitable view, so let this be called 
 conscientious error. The necessity of suppressing its baneful 
 effects is not less imperative. A bold and strong cabinet de¬ 
 nunciation of such a system would effect much, and has never been 
 resorted to. Why not treat this as Repeal agitation has been 
 treated ? If it originate in self-interested motives try it by the 
 Repeal test, and it will wither under it. Declare all persons 
 joining in violent sectarian agitation and in systematic insult to the 
 religion of their fellow countrymen, whether by attacks published 
 in tracts or uttered at public meetings, shall be dismissed from 
 the magistracy, and hold no place of honour, trust, or profit. 
 
 If it originate in an error in judgment, deal with it by remon¬ 
 strance from the Royal Head of the Protestant religion.* Even 
 the earthly head of a Church should have weight with the body; 
 and should not the agitation yield to this, still its irritating ten¬ 
 dency will be impaired, if not destroyed, by showing that it is 
 not countenanced in high places. If it originate with the tribe of 
 Diotrephes,f in sheer love of ascendancy and strife, which are 
 other terms for bigotry and selfishnesss, ministers ought to know 
 how to deal with that which tends to breaches of the peace, and 
 to bringing all religion into disrepute: there are legal enactments 
 enough, and precedents, too, on record. 
 
 Out of the language and conduct pursued towards Catholics and 
 
 * The Queen’s name has been used by Ministers to check Repeal agitation ; 
 why should it not be used to check a system of insult to the religion of a 
 Nation ? 
 
 t f 3 John i. v. 9, 10, 
 
 LIBRARY 
 
 UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS 
 AT URBANA-CHAMPAIGN 
 
10 
 
 their Clergy has grown a great deal of the outcry against the tem¬ 
 poralities of the law-Established Church in Ireland. The people 
 believe them to be the bone over which the possessors stand 
 growling, and thus exciting attention to what many might have 
 passed by without stopping to notice. The people, certainly, 
 were heavily oppressed by tithes; but the Composition Act 
 greatly lightened the pressure. It is, however, still too heavy to 
 need the extra weight of abuse from those who are living on it. 
 There is a wide difference between tolerating a religion, and to¬ 
 lerating its members to insult and assail all who dissent from it. 
 There are the Unitarians in great number in Dublin, and highly 
 respectable persons amongst them, avowing that creed; and a re¬ 
 gular school for Unitarian children, &c. This sect denies the 
 Divinity of Christ, yet there is no Evangelical crusade against it 
 or its clergy ; but there is a regular system of persecution, exclu- 
 clusive dealing, and gross insult kept up against the Catholic who 
 agrees with the High Church and Evangelical Protestant on this, 
 the fundamental doctrine of the Christian Religion, and differs 
 from the Unitarian. There are no insults heaped on the Quaker, 
 yet he rejects the Sacraments altogether—treats them with utter 
 contempt—but they are heaped on the Catholic who venerates 
 these Sacraments (which the Evangelical and High Churchman 
 venerates also), and venerates them rather more than others do— 
 here is the head and front of the offence for which he is insulted 
 and suspected ! In what state would the Empire be if the Ca¬ 
 tholics of Ireland retaliated the abuse they get and the treatment 
 they receive ? or if each sect were to attack the other with the 
 virulence a large portion of persons professing some varieties of 
 Protestantism assail the Catholic, his Church, and his clergy ? 
 A thousand wild cats let loose in a small room would scarcely de- 
 pict the <£ state of the country .” 
 
 What is the boasted freedom of thought, which we are told it 
 is the noble characteristic of Protestantism to enjoy and to bestow ? 
 Does it mean, down with Papists ? What is the Protestant’s in¬ 
 terpretation of the word Toleration, the principle which it 
 professes so loudly to uphold. Does it mean No Popery? 
 What means “ the glorious right of private judgment,” on the 
 free exercise of which the whole Protestant religion is based ? 
 Does it mean, that the right of private judgment is Protestant 
 private property , and that if a man’s private judgment does not 
 lead him into some of the many varieties of their Protest (three- 
 fourths of which are admitted by orthodox Protestants to be 
 but different modifications of human insanity ), he shall not use his 
 private judgment under penalty of desperate attack ? What is the 
 Catholic Emancipation Act ? Is it an act to unchain and enlarge 
 Catholics, for the purpose of hunting them and their religion 
 down, with the High Church war-whoop or evangelical tally-ho? 
 
It 
 
 Are men fit to rule the destinies of a great Empire who have 
 not the moral courage officially to denounce language (formally 
 submitted to them, as Ministers by the authors) of which they (the 
 Ministry), it is to be hoped, strongly disapprove ? Are they not 
 confirming the authors in error ? and leading the assailed party to 
 believe that the calumnies heaped on them are abetted by those in 
 power . Are Ministers thus coy when dealing with popular 
 measures, or violent language on the popular side ? Yet, insulting 
 the national religion ;* open attempts to proselytize Catholics— 
 by traducing the Priesthood, by misrepresenting their creed; and 
 by rewards—and by giving ribbald and blasphemous nicknames to 
 the holy sacraments—in short, by every thing that can lash a Ca¬ 
 tholic from the path of peace into tortured rage—all this is the 
 regular trade of itinerant and stationary Protestant agitators, cle¬ 
 rical or lay at this moment. 
 
 This is a much more important difficulty than merely Sir R. 
 Peel’s difficulty; this is Queen Victoria!s difficulty , and will be 
 the difficulty of each one of her Majesty’s successors, until some 
 change takes place. It is the most probable source of civil war, 
 and if separation ever ensue, and that Catholics are engaged 
 in promoting it, it will be found that ninety-nine out of every 
 hundred of that creed who may be actors in the revolutionary 
 ranks, had entered them smarting under the goading provocations 
 stated. Such language is applied to the Priesthood as no human 
 being would venture to apply to any man in the community but 
 a priest without calculating on being knocked dow T n. Some of 
 the comments on the religion of above seven millions of human 
 beings (not attacking any other form of worship whatsoever), are 
 such as no man, who has any respect for decency, would quote. 
 Suffice it to say, they have all the coarsness of slang, and all the 
 affectation of cant. These shocking epithets are showered on the 
 Catholic population of Ireland, by a section which though alas ! 
 abetted by a large and important body, might, as regards them¬ 
 selves, almost be swept into the sea by the hisses of the millions 
 they insult. But those insults, borne on the mighty wings of 
 the Press, travel through Europe : tis therefore, they cannot be 
 treated with silent contempt. It is impossible that these things 
 can be done with a view to convert Catholics; no human being 
 was ever converted by being insulted, and by hearing his creed 
 
 * Tire Orange Society was perfectly harmless, compared with the Sectarian 
 Political Societies of the present day, more insult, more slander, more gross 
 abuse of the National religion and clergy, and of a Catholic people, are intro¬ 
 duced in one tract, one speech, and in one publication now, than the whole 
 Orange body ever put forth. Orange Societies were formed on the following 
 principles—to preserve a Protestant, and prevent a Catholic ascendancy; but 
 not to exasperate, or to bully, or seduce Catholics from their form of worship, 
 or to interfere with it at all. Every Orange outbreak was a violation of 
 Orange rule, which expressly forbid insulting or assaling any man 0:1 the score 
 of his religion. 
 
1*2 
 
 treated with brutality; it may, nay must, confirm a man in error, 
 if in error he be, but it never will lead to calm investigation and 
 reflection ; and of what value would be any conversion not based 
 on these ? 
 
 Is it consonant with common sense to expect Catholics to re¬ 
 main calm and unruffled when called superstitious bigots— 
 spawn of Antichrist, and damnable idolaters !!! Lan¬ 
 guage such as this is circulated by societies headed and sup¬ 
 ported by several Protestant Clergymen, by Magistrates , Mem¬ 
 bers of Parliament , by Peers , and by numerous bodies of lay 
 Protestants !* 
 
 Protestants of this Empire ! imagine clubs, societies, and bo¬ 
 dies calling themselves “ colonies,” regularly incorporated, for the 
 openly avowed and expressly stated purpose of bringing your re¬ 
 ligion into disrepute—of exterminating it ! !! that is the word 
 used ! Think of a rural press regularly established for the sole 
 purpose of circulating attacks on your creed and of vilifying its mi¬ 
 nisters—Protestants of England, suppose a handful of English Ca¬ 
 tholics daring to placard your religion in the public streets, calling 
 yours an apostate church ! your creed, idolatry ! your Clergy, 
 merchandizers of souls !—and then reflect how Irish Catholics 
 must feel under similar provocation ! Protestants, ask your hearts 
 are Priests without excuse for taking a prominent part in a poli¬ 
 tical agitation, the success of which would probably relieve them 
 and their flocks from paying for abuse.! 
 
 * The writer has read language, almost as. gross as this in, printed bills at¬ 
 tached to the railing of a Protestant Church! in the City of Dublin, to the 
 number of six, about two feet square. He has seen it posted in large placards 
 vert lately along the walls in the outlets of the capital of this, a Catholic 
 country, and this abuse of the religion of the Irish Nation, Irishmen are told 
 by the press of the Empire, is received in England with enthusiasm, 
 
 WITH ACCLAMATION, CHEERING, AND WAIVING OF HANDKERCHIEFS, &C. and yet 
 men calling themselves “ rational,” wonder that priests and their flocks will 
 not cling to that kingdom and to Protestantism, kiss the rod, and turn the other 
 cheek, and pay with perfect good humour the men who are insulting them, and 
 pledging themselves to exterminate the Catholic creed. 
 
 Catholics and Protestants are joint proprietors of several of the principal 
 nations of the earth. In some, Protestants are more numerous, in others Ca¬ 
 tholics, but on the surface of the globe there is not one nation but Ireland, 
 where there exists a bad feeling between them; no where else do Protestants set 
 a crusade on foot to extirpate Catholics by bullying, insulting, and seduction. 
 
 Each party in those countries looks to the piety and conduct, and morals of 
 its own members, and there is something to do in Ireland in that way for the 
 clergy of both religions, but the fact is, a conversion is a sort of triumph here, 
 and but too many persons act as if they would rather hear of one man apostatizing 
 to their creed, than of a score of instances of virtue in their own congregation. 
 
 f It would be grossly improper to introduce in this work one sentence which 
 can offend a pious Protestant; on the contrary, the writer emphatically asserts, 
 his feelings towards all pious and liberal-minded Protestants are affectionate and 
 respectful. He never can be brought to believe that hein fringes on those feelings, 
 or on the abstract principle of justice, by stating that he considers it a clear 
 violation of equity, that a Catholic should be made to contribute one shilling 
 directly, or indirectly to the support of the clergy who protest that his creed.is 
 damnable and idolatrous.. 
 
13 
 
 It lias been proposed by Protestants to pension the Catholic 
 Clergy ; and proposed in terms more than harsh and ungracious. 
 The Catholic people of Ireland are opposed to Religious State 
 Establishments, and Protestants wrong them much if they fancy 
 that Catholics only want to substitute a Catholic for a Protestant 
 ascendancy.* 
 
 Protestants prove by the proposal to pay Priests that they 
 could command an extra fund for that purpose; why not, then, 
 pay their own clergy with this, instead of compelling Catholics 
 to do it. That extra fund would more than cover the deficiency 
 occasioned by the loss of 66 Papistical contribution.” Why prefer 
 so absurd a system as that Protestants should pay a Catholic 
 Clergy, and Catholics pay theirs? That is just the way to 
 make both Clergies indolent and meddling politicians, not re¬ 
 ligionists—brawlers, not preachers—bigoted, not pious (Alieni 
 appetans sui profusus), coveting other flocks, careless of their owru 
 
 If Protestants value peace, they should pension into quiet 
 those fiery spirits of their own religion who are sapping Irish at¬ 
 tachment to England, endangering national peace, and bringing 
 all religion into disrepute. 
 
 It has been peculiarly unfortunate for Sir Robert Peel and his 
 colleagues that these violent and provoking sectarian agitators in 
 both kingdoms call themselves his adherents , and his Government 
 their stay and stronghold. In the name of God, the Queen, 
 and the present ministry are perpetrated all these outrages on 
 Irish Catholics, clerical and lay! Would that their Protestant 
 fellow-countrymen knew the friendly sentiments of Catholic 
 hearts towards the worthy and liberal portion of the Protestant 
 public (it forms a great majority), “ who, whilst they steadily up¬ 
 hold their own creed, do not attempt to outrage Catholic feelings 
 or trample on Catholic faith. Pious men of any religion will al¬ 
 ways be temperate in language, and thus insure respect for them¬ 
 selves, unprejudiced investigation of their doctrine, and studious 
 abstinence from coarse comment on their tenets.! Oh, that men 
 would remember they are but a confraternity of sinners, recol- 
 
 * The writer is of opinion, that a clergyman, when paid directly by his flock, will 
 always be more pious, more pure and more diligent in attending to its spiritual 
 interests; and, precisely for these reasons, less rudely officious, less of the itine¬ 
 rant orator, and less anxious to force his religious opinions on others than to 
 implant, nurture, and watch their fruits amongst those committed to his charge, 
 if he has any such. The writer sees objections against all alliances between a 
 free state and any particular form of Christian worship, and refers the reader 
 to the observations of one of the most distinguished men of the 19th century, 
 the Right Hon. Sir J. Mackintosh, Bart. See Vindicice Gallicice. 
 
 f The writer has conversed, many hundred times, with priests and lay Catho¬ 
 lics on the Protestant religion, and in the course of his life, never heard a rude, 
 an insolent, and still less a brutal, or ribbald observation on a Protestant tenet. 
 The expression of Mr. Blount, a Catholic writer, is constantly applied by Catho¬ 
 lics to the Protestant religion—“ that when strictly adhered to, it is a very bene¬ 
 volent system of Christianity; “ but the writer must add, in the conscientious opi¬ 
 nion of Catholics, imperfect. ’ 
 
14 
 
 leeting, also, the parable of “ the mote and the beam,” and the 
 hallowed mandate* “ judge not, least ye be judged.” 
 
 CHAPTER IV. 
 
 PROTESTANT CO-OPERATION-SOLICITUDE TO OBTAIN, AND CON¬ 
 SCIOUSNESS OF DESERVING IT—SECURITIES TO PROTESTANTS- 
 
 CATHOLIC JURORS-CONFESSIONALS-PROTESTANT CONFI¬ 
 DENCE-ANATHEMA. 
 
 It is the duty of Catholics, who constitute so immense a ma¬ 
 jority of this nation, to strain every nerve to satisfy Protestants, 
 that, in the event of Repeal, their religion, their persons, and 
 their properties should be respected in the fullest sense of that 
 word; that they should enjoy exactly the same protection as those 
 of the Catholics. Every security which human ingenuity could 
 devise should be given in this vital matter ; and though it may, nay 
 must, be impossible to remove chimerical fears and far-fetched 
 suspicions, still even these should be treated with gentleness.* 
 
 It is not for a Catholic to suggest, it is for Protestants to say 
 what would satisfy them; what would set their unjust suspicions 
 at rest. It is deeply painful when friendly sentiments are thus 
 expressed, to hear them met, as they so constantly are, in these 
 words: “ We will not trust Papists“We don’t believe them ;” 
 “ We could not believe their oaths, for their Priests would tell 
 them not to keep faith with Protestants.”! 
 
 Horrible as is such language, the Catholic yet endures it in 
 the hope that “God will open the eyes of Protestant hearts and 
 understandings.” But is not the inconsistency of such wild notions 
 quite glaring, when it is notorious that a Protestant judge will 
 hang a Protestant on Catholic evidence ! Is not this monstrous ? 
 If Protestants seriously believe Irish Catholics to be a nation 
 of perjurers, is it not a burlesque on justice to call them on any 
 juries, or swear them at all? Will nothing awaken Protestants 
 to the inconsistency which makes Catholics be treated as unworthy 
 of credence or trust to-day, absolutely as perjurers, if to be sworn 
 
 * Such perfect confidence has the writer in the sense of justice, and in the good 
 feelings of a large majority of the Protestants of Ireland, that if Ireland obtained 
 a domestic legislature, he would gladly support any measure to secure to them 
 one-half of the representation of Ireland, though they are but one-eighth of the 
 population. 
 
 f The writer heard this atrocious effusion of prejudice, corruption, and bigotry, 
 from a Protestant, D. L., a few days ago, and this man would unblushingly call 
 himself a Christian. 
 
15 
 
 on a political matter, and deal with them to-morrow as credible 
 witnesses in far more serious affairs ? 
 
 It is indefensible that an Irish Law Officer of the Crown 
 has removed from the Jury which is to try five or six Catholics 
 every man who used the same form of prayer, whether he were a 
 Repealer or not, yet in this case men are to be tried only for a 
 misdemeanor; and when that Law Officer gets on the bench, 
 and has to decide on a case affecting life and property, he will 
 swear and credit “ Papist” witnesses.* 
 
 As for striking off Repealers from a jury to be empanneled to 
 try Repealers, few men will complain of that— no man ought —be 
 the Repealers Protestants or Catholics, it was just to select them 
 for striking off—but it should be a matter of indifference to any 
 just or impartial man whether he struck off a Catholic or a Pro* 
 testant Repealer , and equally a matter of indifference whether he 
 kept on a Catholic or a Protestant non-Repealer.f Why, then, 
 were any non-Repeal Catholics selected to be struck off? Why 
 were Catholics who had kept totally aloof from Repeal agitation 
 selected for exclusion from a jury empanneled to try five or six 
 co-religionists ? Does not this, in the clearest manner , prove that 
 the party represented by that Law Officer has not confidence in 
 a Catholic, whether he be a Repealer or not ? The plain infe¬ 
 rence from the exclusion is, that Catholics are not considered to 
 entertain the same horror of the awful crime of perjury that their 
 Protestant fellow-subjects do. 
 
 There is not a religious Catholic in Ireland, and religious Ca¬ 
 tholics only frequent the confessional (the sacraments of any form 
 of religion are frequented only by the religious), who would not 
 peril the rights of his country and his own life,J on the veracity 
 of the assertion that in no confessional in the British Empire is 
 latitude given for the commission of even the most trifling sin, and 
 perjury is one of the greatest. In none , in fact , is advice given 
 which a pious Christian parent would not , on his death-bed, give to 
 the child of his affections. § 
 
 * How would Protestants feel if five Protestants were to be tried for a poli¬ 
 tical offence, and if Catholic officials selected for exclusion every Protestant on 
 the panel, and composed the jury, as the Court and every official belonging to it 
 was composed, wholly of Catholics. 
 
 f It was no imputation whatsoever on a Repealer to leave him off a jury to 
 be empanneled to try Repealers. He must have considered them guiltless, or 
 he ought to have separated from them. A Repealer who had feelings of deli¬ 
 cacy would decline being on that jury. 
 
 k X Willingly, joyously, would the writer submit his to the test. 
 
 § The writer ought to know the confessional better than those unchristian and 
 evil-disposed men, who blaspheme its sanctity by the foulest fabrications, but 
 who never entered one. He became a member of the Roman Catholic Church, in 
 mature life, after much prayer, reading, and reflection. For several years, he 
 almost every Sunday, has received and still receives, and shall so (D. V.) continue 
 to receive Holy Communion ; thus, he must have attended confessionals, from 
 forty to fifty times each year during that period—and he has attended the con¬ 
 fessionals of very many priests in several parts of Dublin, and of Ireland, Eng¬ 
 land, and the Continent. 
 
1C 
 
 In all confessionals the real obligation of an oath—if binding 
 towards every human being—would be treated in its proper light, 
 namely, as being quite as binding a compact between Catholic 
 and Protestant as between Catholic and Catholic. The mon¬ 
 strous calumny that Priests would give absolution for, or counte¬ 
 nance intended sins, is too revolting to be commented on.* 
 
 The writer asserts, in presence of the Searcher of all Hearts, 
 after an intimate knowledge of the Catholic Clergy, that he has 
 the clearest reasons to know they would denounce, in the plainest 
 and most unequivocal language, every description of crime— even 
 in thought (if not thought of with detestation), as drawing 
 down the wrath of God ; and would call rebellion, or any act of 
 violence whatsoever, a crime, and would distinctly state, that with¬ 
 out a true, a full, a solemn , and sincere declaration of repentance for 
 every sin, or sinful thought of sin, they could not and 
 would not give absolution to the applicant, or allow him to ap¬ 
 proach the Holy Communion ; using words to this effect: “ You 
 may deceive me, but you cannot deceive God, and, unless you be 
 repentant, my absolution avails you nothing, and you are but 
 aggravating your guilt, and entailing on yourself eternal punish- 
 ment. ,, | 
 
 Much has been written on the tedious subject of sectarian 
 feud, but it is of paramount importance. Protestant amity, Pro¬ 
 testant co-operation would be the result of Protestant confidence. 
 It is no degradation to the Catholic Christian to bend low and 
 bear much to obtain this. It is a Christian duty at the sacrifice 
 of pride to remove prejudice; and Protestant confidence once 
 obtained, each Catholic will utter from his heart—blighted be his 
 earthly hopes, defeated be his projects, and disgraced his name, 
 who would betray it. 
 
 r * A man called Reverend , after a public dinner at a Liverpool orgie of bigotry, 
 undertook in ribbald language to detail what the priests say in the confessional— 
 may Heaven turn his heart; he began in low ribbaldry, continued in the grossest 
 slander, and finished in blasphemy ; for which, wine or brandy was a miserable 
 excuse. 
 
 f The exact words used in absolution by the Catholic Clergy are to be found 
 in the Protestant “ Book of Common Prayer,” and are a part of the Protestant 
 Rubric or Orders. 
 
 Order to the Protestant Clergy _ See Visitation of the Sick. 
 
 The Protestant Clergyman is ordered to give the absolution in the dying 
 hour. The Catholic does not approve of postponement. Protestant readers are 
 earnestly requested to refer to their Prayer Books. 
 
IT 
 
 CHAPTER V. 
 
 NEGLECT OF IRELAND-INJUSTICE-MOCKERY-DIALOGUE BE¬ 
 TWEEN THE NATIONS-ROYAL YACHT—PROFUSENESS TO¬ 
 WARDS ENGLAND-PARSIMONY TO IRELAND—PARTIALITY- 
 
 INSTANCES OF GROSS NEGLECT AND WRONG—BOARD OF 
 
 WORKS-EARL FORTESCUE—MARQUESS OF ANGLESEA-LORDS 
 
 LIEUTENANT-TWO OF ENGLAND’S POWERS PARALIZED. 
 
 Nothing can be more inconsistent than the course pursued to¬ 
 wards Ireland by all Governments, and nothing more easy to 
 refute than the arguments by which their adherents endeavour 
 to uphold their policy. 
 
 The Irish are told that they are a dependant people—that they 
 must he so held , that England is their “ Owner,” by a mixed 
 right—half deeds of blood, half political corruption—half battle, 
 half purchase; that she will maintain, by force of arms , the right 
 so acquired. This is bold and open ; and, in perfect keeping 
 with this, England adds, that she will direct Ireland's financial 
 affairs as she pleases—have the sole controul of her revenue — trans¬ 
 plant her treasury , impose taxes , regulate her commerce and manu¬ 
 factures—restrict the cultivation of any commodity which would 
 compete with England's other dependancies (as tobacco, &c.) All 
 this, too, is quite consistent, and Ireland, then, with equal con¬ 
 sistency, says—“ as we are to be your dependants , as you pro¬ 
 nounce us unfit to manage our own affairs , and put our property 
 into your chancery , deal with that property as the property of 
 lunatics is dealt with by a court, cause it to he managed to the best 
 advantage for us. But, perhaps you will be pleased to tell us that 
 we are not quite non compos ; only infants in the eye of British 
 law, minors and wards of your chancery , still you are hound to 
 make your receivers manage our affairs to the best advantage , until 
 you are pleased to cut our leading-strings, and declare us men. 
 Your receivers would be amply paid for their trouble, and you 
 would not be merely paid for your justice , but certain of enormous 
 profit, and our property would be improved to the benefit of our¬ 
 selves and of the empire.” The moment this appeal is made to 
 England, her tone, hut not her system , is quite altered; “ you are 
 our dear sister,” says she, “ you have the most beautiful country 
 in the world—you are a fine, brave, kind-hearted people, you 
 have equal rights, privileges, and advantages with us, greater 
 resources— develope them yourselves.” 
 
 All Governments theorize about Ireland, make their half yearly 
 haul from both tenant and landlord , merchant and trader , rich and 
 poor , in the shape of revenue, and then tell us to settle our affairs 
 any way we can; now and then, rolling in a little apple of discord, 
 
 c 
 
18 
 
 like the Tithe Bill, the Poor Law Bill, the Arms’ Bill, &c. &c. 
 Ireland is then left to play nation, and draw on fancy for inde¬ 
 pendence—of which England gravely assures her she possesses 
 ample for every useful purpose. When Governments tell the 
 Irish to develope their own resources, and pay them empty com¬ 
 pliments about their soil, &c., the Irish have a reply which 
 always cuts British oratory short—“ restore to us the principle of 
 vitality ; and, warned by the miseries of the past, sensitive to 
 the sufferings of the present, we will, with divine assistance, 
 create a fund, and progressively develope our resources; and 
 having the fee of the country, as well as of the land vested in its 
 inhabitants by the possession of a constitution of which a public 
 fund, a treasury, are some of the results, we shall be a good security 
 for the outlay of your capital, and it will be infinitely a more 
 profitable speculation for you to take capital to Ireland when she 
 is a self-governed nation, than whilst she remains a dispirited 
 and dependant province.” 
 
 Self-created grievances in Ireland could be dealt with, and 
 cured by domestic legislature more effectually than by any other 
 form of Government; and the various evils consequent on British 
 mismanagement, still more imperatively demand home-treatment. 
 What would be said of any man who preferred consulting a 
 London doctor by letter, to the personal investigation and con¬ 
 stant attendance of a first-rate Dublin physician? Who can 
 blame England for treating the Irish as mad or imbecile, when 
 they, year after year consented without murmur to take such a 
 course, and when Irish gentlemen now combine to stigmatize 
 themselves as unfit to be trusted with the management of their 
 own affairs. Who can blame England for doubting the propriety 
 of entrusting national business to men whose intellects she, from 
 their own declarations, must believe, and perceive, are weak ? 
 and accordingly, she thus “ reasons” with the people of Ireland : 
 “Observe how we develope our resources; yours is a fine kingdom; 
 you have great resources, and an ample population—all our great 
 works are not done by the treasury. We reclaim land, make 
 railroads, set on foot steam works, &c. &c. Our millionaire 
 traders, our Prince merchants, our £10,000 a-year resident 
 gentry, our enormously rich and numerous resident nobility, 
 our comfortable Yeomanry do these things for England—go Ire¬ 
 land and do likewise.” Let Ireland be heard in reply, “You 
 dragged us into a war, loaded us with your debts, robbed us of 
 the classes you have enumerated—you have drained our re¬ 
 sources; you have seized on our treasury; you have inveigled our 
 wealthy aristocracy to live amongst you by shutting out the sun 
 of Royalty from us, and allowing it to shine only on yourselves: by 
 grasping every particle of patronage and using it for enriching Eng¬ 
 lish, or for corrupting Irish gentlemen , you rent up society by the 
 
19 
 
 roots, by transferring the aristocratic assembly, the national le¬ 
 gislature ; you destroyed our capital and banished our capital¬ 
 ists, by regulating and controuling our commercial, manufactu¬ 
 ring and financial arrangements to suit your own interests, regard¬ 
 less of ours; you have irritated our clergy by a torrent of insult, 
 and have compelled us to pay yours for acting as conduits to this 
 lava-like torrent—irrigating our “ Papist souls,” with streams of 
 red-hot Protestant love; and, having done all this, you have the 
 hardihood to reproach our remaining gentry and our people with 
 not being able to repair the ruin you have spread over the 
 land, our clergy with not sitting easy on your gridirons, and our 
 people with not enjoying the tragedy you have enacted. You 
 take our moulds, and you bid us coin; rhapsodize about our having 
 a full share in power, in money, and in the advantages which might 
 result from being consolidated with you, and finish by mocking us 
 with the name of sister. No, Ireland wishes to be, but is not 
 your sister, she is just what you have made her, what your Prime 
 Minister has called her, “ your difficulty” and through your op¬ 
 pressions first, your bribery next , your mismanagement after , your 
 neglect lately , and your rashness now , she is more than your diffi¬ 
 culty , she is your reproach.”* Is this Ireland’s fair share of in¬ 
 fluence in the British legislative body ? England’s power there, 
 when it comes to voting, is, as 1003 to 133, being above eight to 
 one against Ireland, and the whole population of England, Scot¬ 
 land, and Wales, is but eighteen millions and a-half, Ireland’s is 
 above eight millions. Thus, the difference is not two and a-half 
 to one in number, and the account stands thus: 
 
 SIZES, 2£-1. 
 
 House of Peers, ... 
 
 450 
 
 Peers, . 
 
 28 
 
 of Commons, ... 
 
 553 
 
 Commons, 
 
 105 
 
 England,. 
 
 ... 1003 
 
 Ireland, ... 
 
 133 
 
 
 — 1 AGAINST IRELAND. 
 
 
 One hundred English peasants vote out of every four hun¬ 
 dred, and only one single peasant out of each four hundred in 
 Ireland. Is this a fair proportion as to a constituency? What a 
 modest assumption on the part of England , that she is just a hun¬ 
 dred to one more worthy of this constitutional right than Irishmen. 
 That an English peasant is one hundred to one more intelligent 
 than an Irishman— is not this audacious insult ? 
 
 Now, to meet the assertion that the Irish Nation has had, 
 and has, its fair proportion and share of outlay of public money. 
 Nobles and gentry of England, especially you distinguished 
 Noblemen who uttered the memorable expressions, “ war to the 
 knife sooner than independence for Ireland.”—Peers and Com- 
 
 * These and all other charges are brought against an Oligarchy, not against 
 the noble People of England. 
 
 c 2 
 
20 
 
 mons of England, stand forward before the Empire and say, that 
 the proportions stated, as to the representation and constituency 
 of Ireland, are in accordance with the rights of man. Then 
 look to the surfaces of the two nations, and point out anything 
 that corroborates your assertions—that public money has been 
 distributed in just proportions. In proportions which bear the 
 remotest comparison. 
 
 Look at your magnificent, your truly imperial public works, 
 carried on at imperial expense—but by which you alone benefit; 
 your splendid public buildings, your quays, docks, arsenals, 
 dockyards, your countless Employes, from the daily labourer to 
 the Duke in office; all receiving from the united purse, all (ex¬ 
 cept a miserable few,) spending it, returning it as it were, not 
 to the united purse, but to the sole advantage of the strong sister’s 
 population—amongst whom alone the whole of the money col¬ 
 lected from both nations is expended. Look now, how in a few 
 months, for one Royal Gem of the sea, in one English town, you 
 spent £100,000 from the joint imperial purse. With Irish as 
 well as English money was the Royal Yacht built—and yet you 
 advised the Sovereign of the Ocean, to turn its glittering Prow from 
 her Majesty’s own twin-isle to that continental stranger, to that 
 nation of which for England, and England's sake alone , Ireland 
 had been for ten tedious years of mortal strife, the deadly anta¬ 
 gonist, bathing with Irish blood the soils of four nations ; and was 
 it not afflicting to her—your sister and your ever-faithful ally—to 
 her, but once honored by the sight of royalty coming in peace , 
 that yearnings of loyalty were disappointed, warm hearts were 
 chilled, fond hopes were blighted, and that the Morning Sun of 
 the British Empire first beamed upon the land of England’s here¬ 
 ditary foe. Where is the defamer of royalty who will say, that 
 the Sovereign of these realms was deterred from visiting any part 
 of them, by a declaration from one of her Majesty’s subjects, 
 that the people intended to petition their monarch ? Where is 
 the monarch who would be so deterred, or would shun an oppor¬ 
 tunity of seeing his subjects, and of hearing their complaints ? 
 The people of Ireland firmly believe that they owe their disap¬ 
 pointment to ministerial influence—as they are aware that in far 
 minor matters, ministers claim a right to arrange. The Scotch 
 noblemen in the cabinet, did their duty by their country, and by 
 their Sovereign—Scotland was ably represented in that cabinet; 
 Ireland, alas, has not one voice there, patriotism and loyalty can 
 go hand in hand in Scotland—but in Ireland patriotism is called 
 sedition. It is not intended to convey an expression of regret 
 in the language of reproach, save so far as ministers are con¬ 
 cerned, in not having suggested Ireland’s respectful claim to pri¬ 
 ority of Royal notice. 
 
 Is it necessary to point out the gigantic expenditure for ships of 
 
21 
 
 war, and all such outlays in England It would be almost su¬ 
 perfluous, if indeed it were possible, to enumerate all the palaces 
 and all the enormous state establishments, all the profit, all the 
 outlay, all the benefit of the annual expenditure, all the show, 
 all the ornament on England’s side. On Ireland’s, the cost, 
 without a fraction of return, a particle of decoration, or even a 
 formal compliment, a peep at what they pay for, in return—some 
 war steamers and the soldiery excepted. 
 
 England should remember her grant, a few years since, to one 
 small district in Scotland, nearly two millions, for the Caledonian 
 Canal, a work of comparatively little public advantage, and this 
 sum was granted from the joint purse of Ireland (ruined Ireland,) 
 and Great Britain for the express purpose, as the parliamentary 
 documents state, of 'preventing tbe Highlanders from emigrating. 
 Yet, emigation is England’s only cure for the diseases her misma¬ 
 nagement annually creates here. 
 
 Five hundred thousand pounds were granted some time ago 
 for public works in the empire—England thus divided it, and was it 
 the division of a subjugatrix or of a sister? As usual, she played 
 the subjugatrix, and sent her Irish dependant £50,000, one-tenth, 
 and under such mean and injurious restrictions, that she quite 
 damaged the effect of her niggardly instalment. She has a Board 
 of Works presided over by an efficient public officer, Major- 
 General Sir John Burgoyne, assisted by gentlemen equally en¬ 
 titled to respect, and confidence, Messrs. Ottley and Radcliffe, 
 yet she would not place this paltry £50,000 at their full disposal, 
 under the sanction of even the Personage whom she calls the Re¬ 
 presentative of Ireland's Sovereign, but keeps that Personage in 
 the leading strings of her Treasury Lords. It was enough that 
 the money was to be doled out for Ireland, so England kept it 
 under the sole controul of men, totally unacquainted with that 
 country—in fact of Englishmen, resident in England; refusing her 
 own intelligent officers here, who knew Ireland—which few of her 
 lords of the treasury ever set a foot in—refusing her own, and 
 Ireland’s Sovereign’s Representative the power of laying out the 
 small sum actually assigned to Ireland, to what they had the 
 best right to know was to the advantage of the nation. 
 
 The following cases may be relied on as facts ; they are stated 
 by the person [the writer is that person] who was connected with 
 them all; who has transacted business several times with the 
 Board of Works, and who is now within correction of that Board 
 if he fall into any misstatement. 
 
 As a county Grand Juror [Galway] he got a presentment 
 passed for a line of road, the want of which had, long ex¬ 
 cluded from the only market towns in the barony about eight 
 thousand persons, so far as using a car to take their commodi¬ 
 ties for sale. The Board of Works had the power of lending (to 
 
22 
 
 be repaid by instalments) as much as the county granted—the 
 whole was £1,000. The Board commenced the work, made a mile 
 at each end, then said they regretted the money was all ex¬ 
 pended, that the sum had been insufficient, and that they had 
 no fund on which to draw for the completion of the work. Their 
 having commenced it caused the people to cease applying for the 
 annual presentment for repairs, and thus the case was far worse 
 than when the Board began; for the centre two miles became 
 quite impassable, and their work was, therefore, money lost. 
 
 In vain, thousands remonstrated by petitions, &c. The 
 poor people were shut up by sloughs, by deep ruts, and by broken 
 gullies, &c. This continued a considerable time. The Board at 
 last replied to this gentleman “ that if he got a further sum from 
 the county they would lend as much more, and finish the work.” 
 He was compelled to act as they suggested, and on this occasion 
 took their own officer (he had before employed the county sur¬ 
 veyor) ; he got that officer’s estimate, brought it before the Grand 
 Jury—and a more liberal and benevolent Grand Jury never was 
 embodied than the Grand Jury of the county of Galway at all 
 times—and again obtained £1,000, the sum estimated. The col¬ 
 lection of it from the people commenced, and the lodgments were 
 paid into the county treasury, to the credit of the Board of Works, 
 and there it was remaining unproductive—and there was the work 
 untouched—and there were the people shut up and most seriously 
 impoverished and injured by want of a passage to market; and this 
 in a part of the county the manufacture of which (kelp) had just 
 been destroyed by free trade; and in the whole district, thirty 
 miles, there were but three resident proprietors, of whom the 
 narrator was one. He applied to the Board, month after month, 
 pointing out that it was actually a fraud on the country (that is on 
 the people) who had paid the money to the treasurer, to the 
 credit of the Board, and had gone to all the expense and trouble 
 of the presentment, at the suggestion of the Board, and on 
 the valuation of their officer.* He reminded the Board that 
 they had put the Grand Jury to the trouble of discussing and 
 passing the presentment, and this after having disappointed the 
 county in the first instance: that their own work—one thousand 
 pounds on the county—was useless, and that sum was, therefore, 
 thrown away, though wrung from a very poor population. Sir 
 John Burgoyne was anxious to do justice, but wrote to state that 
 “ the Lords of the English Treasury had made a new rule ; that 
 he sincerely regretted he could not now proceed with the work; 
 that he admitted the facts stated in the remonstrance, and was very 
 sorry that the Board could not take any step whatsoever in the 
 business.” Sir J. Burgoyne added, it was a case of great hard- 
 
 * A gentleman resident in Clifden (Mr. Pearce,) who fulfils his important 
 duties with ability, impartiality, and universal approbation. 
 
*23 
 
 ship!” The narrator then proceeded to Dublin (thus taking a 
 journey of 300 miles on public business ), waited on the Lord Lieu¬ 
 tenant, Lord Fortescue. His Excellency also saw “the extreme 
 hardship” of the case, and requested the applicant to meet Sir J. 
 Burgoyne with his Excellency next day , at the Castle, in the au¬ 
 dience-room. He did so. Sir John, with that candour which has 
 gained him general esteem, corroborated to the Lord Lieutenant 
 all that the applicant had stated, and again distinctly characterized 
 the transaction as one of the “ greatest hardship,” and expressed 
 the strongest regret at the late regulations. The Lord Lieutenant 
 said “he fully concurred in that opinion “ but,” said his Excel¬ 
 lency, “ I have no power in this case ; I cannot direct the outlay of 
 a farthing , though the money is granted for Ireland as well as Eng¬ 
 land, it is ALL AT THE DISPOSAL OF THE LORDS OF THE TREA¬ 
 SURY in London. All I can do is to write now at this desk , and 
 entreat them to do something for those poor people who have paid 
 their money on the faith of an arrangement entered into with a 
 Government board. I shall take care to point out that a thousand 
 pounds of public money (the people’s) has been already ex¬ 
 pended, which must be dead loss unless the rest be given, as 
 arranged.” The applicant then said—“My Lord, some of those 
 Lords of the Treasury may have been at school when your Ex¬ 
 cellency and I sat in the same house, as senators; only one of 
 them ever saw Ireland; and yet your Excellency, the Repre¬ 
 sentative of the Monarch, cannot order the fulfilment of this con¬ 
 tract !—cannot order the disbursement of one penny of the paltry 
 instalment granted for Ireland by a United Parliament !-—by 
 Irish and English members !—you cannot do this without asking 
 the leave of English Lords of the Treasury ! My Lord , lam not 
 a Repealer , but if I ever become one I shall state this case , and as¬ 
 sign it as one reason for seeking domestic legislation , and shall refer 
 to your Excellency and to Sir John Burgoyne .” Both gentlemen 
 are now alive, and one of them in office in Ireland, and the nar¬ 
 rator appeals to their honour and to their memories to bear him 
 out; the occurrence is but four years’ old. 
 
 The following is another instance of the want of a Domestic 
 Legislature, and these are affairs in which the vital interests of 
 from twenty to thirty thousand Irishmen were at stake. Mr. 
 Martin, M.P., had a contract for several miles of main road, 
 opening above twenty miles of country, and a passage to the assize 
 town for the population of two baronies. He handed over the 
 county money and contracts to the Government; the money was 
 squandered by Government officers , the work was left quite un¬ 
 finished— bridges half built , and the road impassable to cars! ! 
 The people were deeply injured; not to speak of the annoyance, 
 there was actual danger—and accidents constantly occurred, re¬ 
 sulting from this state of things—yet it went on for several years; 
 
24 
 
 an old and dangerous mountain path* being the sole entrance to 
 the whole district, forty to fifty miles in extent, with a population 
 of over 30,000. 
 
 The narrator, then in Parliament, presented a petition to the 
 House of Commons from the barony. Mr. Martin, M.P., whose 
 whole life has been devoted to the improvement of that part of 
 the country, toiled unceasingly to obtain redress; and long in 
 vain. The narrator waited on Lord Anglesey, then Lord Lieu¬ 
 tenant. His Excellency said, “ it was a sad case ; that he was 
 greatly shocked at the cruel way in which the people were treated — 
 that the Law Officers of the Crown had been consulted about prose¬ 
 cuting the defaulters—that he would do his best , but he feared it was 
 a hopeless case , as he really did not know out of what fund the de¬ 
 ficiency was to be made good , and that certainly he had none at his 
 disposal. These were his Excellency’s words, transcribed after 
 the interview. England appropriates all Ireland’s revenues, and 
 then lends her a minute portion of them under the most galling 
 restrictions, and generally appoints English or Scotch gentlemen 
 to dole out any scanty pittance for the Irish, under the controul 
 of British Lords of the Treasury. England leaves Ireland de¬ 
 pendant on the whim of those English lords, for the completion of 
 a half-executed work, commenced under the orders of some pre¬ 
 vious set of lords. In the last case cited, the Government after 
 pleading insolvency, and hide and seek for several years, paid the 
 debt to the county, and made the road—and the revenue of one 
 town in the district amounted, in a few years, to what the road 
 cost. Thus was an actual fraud committed on the inhabitants of 
 two large baronies, and unatoned for, for several years, and also 
 an annual injury to the revenue to a large amount. 
 
 Could such a state of things have existed for years in any 
 country on this earth where there existed a home government • 
 cr if that country had been fairly and fully represented elsewhere ? 
 and what is the improvement in the way of doing Irish business 
 now—what is the wise new rule of the English Lords of the 
 United Treasury? In substance it amounts to this: “ not to 
 grant any money to any district in Ireland in which there is not 
 a wealthy landed proprietor, ora peasantry in good circumstances.” 
 For in every case they require that some person, or some body of 
 persons, shall advance half the money or the Treasury will give 
 no assistance ! ! ! This supposes a wealthy proprietor, or wealthy 
 population, for none others can give half. If a rich gentleman 
 want a pretty pier or quay, or road to his shooting lodge, he 
 might perhaps get it made at half price, by advancing half the 
 cost himself, but if a poor fishing colony want security for their all , 
 their lives , boats and nets—if they want a place to run into amidst the 
 
 * Made for thirty miles, by an ancestor of the writer’s. 
 
25 
 
 horrors of Atlantic storms , by ivhich hundreds of lives have been 
 within a few years lost (and this loss is regular, and annual;) if 
 this class want protection and aid, if in fact the real resources of the 
 country want development— and where do they want development]so 
 much as where the people are poor but industrious, and can by timely 
 aid establish means of procuring a livelihood, as fisheries, recla¬ 
 mation of land, &c. &c. ?—yet for these purposes not one shilling 
 will England give from the united purse — refund is the more 
 correct expression. The person who has narrated has been the 
 actor in those scenes now laid before the public. He is the 
 writer of this pamphlet, and has a document in his possession 
 signed by the resident officer of the Board of Works, by officials 
 of every class, clergymen, travellers, engineers, peasants, fisher¬ 
 men, and by several captains of vessels which put into the harbour 
 in distress, all urging the necessity of a small pier at a well known 
 fishing station on the western coast. He has a copy of the re¬ 
 port of the officer of the Board of Works, and the Board has the 
 original , stating that the increase of the revenue would probably 
 soon , and amply, pay for the outlay, and that the safety of passing 
 shipping as well as common justice and humanity to a fishing 
 colony—bold and indefatigable, but necessitous—all required such 
 a work ; and what was the reply of the Lords of the Treasury to 
 the beforementioned applicant? “ You must go to all the ex¬ 
 penses of surveying, mapping, &c., about £100; and you must, 
 yourself, pay one-half the whole cost, be it £1,000 or £10,000, or 
 you may collect it from the poor fishermen ijyou can , but this you 
 must forthwith lodge, or we will not advance a farthing or com¬ 
 mence the work.” Would they say this to the wealthy inhabi¬ 
 tants of the coast from London to Ramsgate; though every square 
 mile of it contains more wealthy persons than were in the whole 
 district here spoken of? No, they would not; for it would then 
 be an outlay for the protection of English lives , and English pro¬ 
 perties, and English steamers, and English fishing-boats, and 
 pleasure- boats. 
 
 It is needless to go extensively into the case of Ireland’s direct 
 injuries from the Union. Mr. John O’Connell, and the indefati¬ 
 gable Mr. Staunton, Mr. Dixon (an English gentleman), and 
 many other able calculators, have proved how deeply Ireland has 
 suffered in every source of a nation’s prosperity. The instances 
 cited in this brochure falling within the immediate observation of 
 the writer, are introduced to show the local effects of neglect and 
 mismanagement. England has every power over Ireland save 
 two—she has not the power of withdrawing one favour, or of in¬ 
 flicting a new wrong. 
 
26 
 
 CHAPTER VI. 
 
 FEDERALISM, AND FANCY LEGISLATION-VARIETIES OF PLANS- 
 
 INDEPENDENCE DEAD AND BURIED — RESURRECTIONISTS- 
 
 THE MILLIONS. 
 
 It is an instructive view of human nature, to observe how many 
 gradations of patriotic feeling the Liberator has called into exis¬ 
 tence ; and an amusing one to remark the awkward efforts, at what 
 they fancy is patriotism, made by some who never knew the 
 meaning of the terms “ Native Landwho never felt they had a 
 country, who lived only for themselves—who thought it the 
 highest proof of human sagacity to be able to say, “ I am not of 
 any party, I never meddle with politics,” in other words, I am 
 a native of nowhere , and I take an interest in nothing , but myself. 
 I am a member of the community, but I recognise only number 
 one in it, and that is myself ; I read my Bible, and interpret the 
 holy command, “ love one another,” to mean, “ lam to love my¬ 
 self,\ and myself is to love me.” 
 
 By the time the independence of Ireland has rolled down the 
 hill to this class, it has become “ so fine by degrees, so beauti¬ 
 fully less,” that not one particle is visible, and it glides into the 
 silent tomb. This is then its posthumous state, and around its 
 grave are to be found a few persons chaunting in funereal tones 
 their invocation to the members of the British House of Com¬ 
 mons, to come over and visit the sepulchre once in three years ! 
 
 It is melancholy to hear Irish gentlemen saying, ts they 
 would go this far”'—this far ! So then, this is a strain, a sacrifice 
 on their part; of what, pray ? A compromise between servile de¬ 
 votion to England and a forced fancy for Ireland. We will leave 
 these Mutes grouped amidst the ruins of their, alas, their country, 
 and proceed to some resurrectionists who would raise Ireland 
 from her sepulchre. This class goes much farther than the 
 party talking about Ireland’s posthumous prosperity, having 
 duly consigned her to the grave of total dependence; for thus an 
 unrepresented nation lies. Can any man who loves his country, 
 reconcile it to himself to cajole the people into the delusion, that 
 a visit once in three years from some three or four hundred Eng¬ 
 lish gentlemen would be any equivalent for a Constitution ? The 
 resurrectionists take a far more just and rational view of Ireland’s 
 degraded condition, for they would vivify the fij-st lifeless propo¬ 
 sition, by a full and complete representation of Ireland in the 
 parliament to be held once in every three years in Dublin—and 
 Dublin, if convenient to the Queen, and to Prince Albert (on 
 whom her Majesty’s movements, in so great a measure depend) 
 to be, for that season, the seat of royalty. 
 
27 
 
 Every one should set the proper value on the lustre of 
 royalty, but it should never be mistaken for, or put into the 
 remotest competition, with the divine orb of liberty ; consti¬ 
 tutional liberty, not licentiousness — and this can never be 
 achieved but by a full popular representation. The occasional 
 visit of a Sovereign, would be tinsel compared with the sterling 
 advantage of extension of the franchise. Extension of franchise 
 and representation, combined, would certainly produce results very 
 beneficial to Ireland; and it is perhaps an experiment, not unsuited 
 to the times—one however which, Repealers could not be expect¬ 
 ed to descend the hill to propose. Though certainly they ought to 
 lend their aid to every measure calculated to improve their country. 
 
 There does not appear to be any intermediate stage, at least, 
 none on which there is footing between this and Federalism. 
 
 It is not an unfair definition of Federalism, judging by the 
 supineness of its professors, to call it “ the dormitory of drowsy 
 patriots a sleeping stage on the journey from slavery—which 
 they admit to be a term descriptive of Ireland’s state—and an in¬ 
 dependence they consider visionary, but millions believe to be 
 practicable. 
 
 It requires, it seems, great mental efforts to arrive at the 
 conclusion that Ireland should have some trifling share in the 
 management of her own affairs , when men retire to rest after 
 adopting that opinion: thus it is with Federalists—they say Ire¬ 
 land ought to have a demi-parliament, for local business—and 
 having said this, they yawn, retire, and go to sleep. 
 
 Several persons before they became Repealers, no doubt, 
 made enquiries for Federal Hall; but in all Dublin there is not 
 to be found, one man to tell the enquirers where the Federal place 
 of meeting is ; and very probably, even if they did discover the 
 locality, and the road to it, no one would be up at the stage to let 
 them in. 
 
 The Federalist establishment is used as a place of refuge by 
 those who prefer theoretical to working patriotism, who consider 
 a mere declaration of that principle is a payment in full of an 
 Irishman’s debt to his country, and enables him to strut in all 
 the honours of demi-patriotism (when awake) without entailing 
 exertion or outlay , or incurring any risk . It is totally unnecessary 
 to say, that in these comments (and they are not intentionally 
 disrespectful to any one,) not the remotest allusion is intended 
 towards Mr. Sharman Crawford, the Rev. Mr. O’Malley, the 
 
 Hon. Mr. Cauneld, and a few others.* 
 
 A 
 
 * Mr. Crawford possesses the confidence of his countrymen, whether he 
 differ from or agree with the majority. He is at this moment one of the most 
 distinguished leaders in the great popular movement in England (with which 
 the writer has now the honor to be connected). Every project for the improve¬ 
 ment of the poor man’s condition, and for the proper extension of constitutional 
 liberty has had his vigorous and untiring support. If Repeal has as yet proved 
 
28 
 
 Mr. Crawford may rest assured that whenever he states he 
 has brought his plan to an issue, Repealers will not attempt by 
 overt or covert means, to create a prejudice and prevent the fair 
 working of the project; on the contrary, they would labour to 
 test its utility, for any reasonable time. Every legislative 
 measure is experimental ; at all events none should be called 
 final before trial. Mr. Crawford has important avocations in 
 England, it would be unreasonable to expect him to be an active 
 Federalist; it is as well, however, to submit to him that his assist¬ 
 ants are lethargic, and that delay in calling them together is inju¬ 
 rious to Repeal , without promoting his project. The Rev. Mr. 
 O’Malley has but just returned to Ireland, and is a valuable ac¬ 
 cession to Mr. Crawford’s project; so is Colonel Caulfield, a 
 gentleman whose mind enobles a noble descent. There is one of 
 Ireland’s most distinguished sons, whose accession to the popular 
 party has been anxiously expected. The truly patriotic con¬ 
 duct of Lord Clements, last year, has endeared him to every 
 Irishman who loves his native land, and has assigned to his 
 Lordship a place in their respect and confidence which neither 
 mere rank nor wealth can ever obtain. It will not injure the per¬ 
 fect or imperfect principle, either Federalism or Repeal, that those 
 projects should be brought separately before the legislature. A 
 Federalist is culpable if he decline to ask for what he considers 
 justice, on the plea that Repealers are, in his opinion, demanding 
 too much; neither have Federalists a right to ask Repealers to 
 disband a single man who is enrolled as a constitutional comba¬ 
 tant for the restoration of Ireland’s undivided right. But on the 
 other hand, Repealers would greatly err, if, because they could 
 not obtain their own object, they should endeavour to defeat that 
 of Federalists (or any other body of persons interested in the 
 welfare of Ireland), on the ground that it fell short. Its insuf¬ 
 ficiency, if it be (as independents believe,) insufficient, will be 
 very soon ascertained, and then Federalists become bound in 
 honour to proceed, not retrograde or remain stationary. 
 
 Ireland’s grievances are very old; Federalism, a very new 
 remedy, and yet slumbering; Repeal is on foot a considerable 
 time, and most active ; Federalists cannot in reason ask veteran 
 Repealers to return back and become federal recruits. There is 
 no natural connexion between religion and politics; but in Ire¬ 
 land they are so entwined that every plan for the improvement 
 of Ireland has its religious as well as political name—so Fe¬ 
 deralism is called 66 The Protestant Project”—would it could be 
 called “ Movement,” it is of pure Northern origin; and any 
 
 the exception, it is only because he thinks Federalism more feasible, and desires 
 to see it get a fair trial. 
 
 The writer has the honor of being lately hi confidential correspondence with 
 Mr. Crawford, and was so some years ago. 
 
29 
 
 emanation of patriotism there, though a modern novelty, is but a 
 return to the ancient principles of the men of the North. Nor¬ 
 therns are not afraid that Irishmen alone will be unable to prevent 
 anarchy and confusion in Ireland. This they have proved by 
 tendering their services to Government, and by repeatedly pub¬ 
 lished declarations that they are able to preserve Ireland as an 
 appendage to the British Crown; and so any one man of them 
 is, and at this very moment he would enjoy a comfortable sinecure, 
 for there is not the slightest idea of rebellion at present. The 
 Protestants of the North have not been tainted by the fears 
 of elderly Protestant gentlewomen, who imagine worse thanmurder 
 would be perpetrated on them but for the soldiers quartered in 
 Dublin and Cork. North-country Protestants are not afraid of 
 being left alone with their Catholic fellow-countrymen. They 
 did not borrow their bravery from the fancied protection of British 
 bayonets, when they lately offered, if embodied into yeomanry, 
 to be guardians of Ireland, and to put down rebellion, should it 
 break out. They did not mean to offer their services to shoot 
 their pacific, peasant countrymen, and it would be an insult to 
 the gallant British Army—to the disciplined troops of a nation, 
 nearly double the amount in population, to insinuate that they 
 were not able to put down an insurrection in Ireland without 
 yeomen aid, when it is notorious that it would not be counte¬ 
 nanced by the bulk of the people. In such a case, an offer to join 
 the regular army would amount to a statement that all England 
 is not able to keep a portion of the unarmed peasantry of Ire¬ 
 land in check without the aid of all the Irish Protestants. This 
 cannot be fact, and a superfluous tender of Protestant muskets 
 in that case would be an officious and sanguinary display of 
 second-hand courage, more likely to do harm than good. The 
 Northerns must have meant that they needed no British aid. If 
 this was not what they meant, it is to be hoped the term, 
 Northern Valour will be expunged from the annals of loyalty. 
 But the noble blood of their sires, the men of 178*2, is not extinct, 
 they are patriots by descent, and probably so at heart; their loy¬ 
 alty has, however, run wild and overwhelmed their patriotism. 
 They erroneously imagine that there is a collision between pa¬ 
 triotism and loyalty in the Repeal principle ; they are egregiously 
 mistaken—there is no measure which so effectually provides 
 against separation; but if they have a doubt of this fact, if they 
 will not support the independent principle, the Protestant North¬ 
 ern project, Federalism, is before them, suggested by Protestants— 
 why not support it ? If the Protestant patriots unite, they are 
 a most powerful party; they have certainly more influence with 
 English governments than Repealers have, and will find little dif¬ 
 ficulty in arriving at Federalism, whilst Repealers perceive that 
 there are great difficulties between them and independence. Fe- 
 
30 
 
 deralists have the good wishes and friendship of the Independents. 
 It would be unreasonable to ask Repealers to retire from their 
 more advanced position, or to expect them to chill the now glowing 
 spirit of patriotism—to disband patriotic millions— to repeal the 
 union ofhearts^ basedonone indivisible principle —independence— 
 and above all, by retrograding to shew a doubt of that Providence 
 which has mercifully guided them thus far without stain—untainted 
 by corruption, undaunted by the sword, and unruffled by provo¬ 
 cation. They will not then subdivide, they are as one man and 
 will at present remain so, for the millions cannot be either bought 
 or intimidated. 
 
 CHAPTER VII. 
 
 THE SOLE OBSTACLE TO REPEAL—INOCULATED CATHOLICS—ST. 
 
 BARTHOLOMEW-HYPPOCONDRACIS. 
 
 Were Ireland all Protestant—all Jewish—all Mahomedan— 
 there is not a second opinion as to the fact, that the demand for 
 Repeal would be simultaneous and universal in Ireland, and the 
 concession of it certain, on part of England. Whilst this estab¬ 
 lishes the fact that the advantage of domestic legislature is incon¬ 
 trovertible, it also clearly points out the cause and quarter whence 
 proceeds any Irish opposition to it. The opposition is evidently 
 sectarian, and nothing else, and originates in the chimerical 
 fears of some of our respected and loved Protestant brethren. 
 Some Catholics hang as a dead weight on the great national move¬ 
 ment, and are thus, by pure vis inertice , checks on the prosperity 
 of their native land. Out of habitual deference to their Protestant 
 friends (in some cases patrons) they have allowed themselves to 
 be inoculated with a disease of the nerves (a species of neuralgia :) 
 appearing not merely to commiserate Protestants for their un¬ 
 worthy suspicions, but to share in them. Other smaller sections of 
 Catholics have totally lost their own caste, but cannot obtain en¬ 
 trance into that before which they crouch, without giving up 
 creed as well as caste; they have long accustomed themselves 
 to bow down before each misruling government to show how loyal 
 they were; and kissed the rod of sectarian oppression to prove that 
 they had no religious prejudices. Of this class some have crept 
 into the Houses of Lords and Commons under the Eagle wing of 
 O’Connell, and then with puny strength, but leviathan ingrati¬ 
 tude, try to break the pinion which warmed them into political 
 existence. The rest of the unrepealing Catholics of Ireland are, 
 no doubt, conscientious opponents, or apathetic. This is said in 
 sorrow, not in anger ; with firmness, but also with respect. 
 
 It is to be deplored that out of all the saints in the Protestant 
 
31 
 
 calendar, St. Bartholomew is the only one who holds a venerated 
 place in their memories. It has been the misfortune of Catholics 
 to hear frequently the atrocity committed on that Saint’s day in 
 France, three hundred years ago, assigned as a reason for sus¬ 
 pecting the Catholics of Ireland in 1844. Catholics also, re¬ 
 peatedly, within the last few weeks, have heard it asserted by 
 respectable Protestant citizens in Dublin, that they oppose Re¬ 
 peal solely because they believe that if a British army were not 
 in Ireland, the throats of all the Protestants would he cut! ! ! May 
 God forgive such criminal suspicions, and enable Protestant eyes 
 to see into Catholic hearts: as well might the few Catholics of 
 England live in terror lest their Protestant fellow-subjects of the 
 present century should jump backwards into the horrors of the 
 Reformation, and rob and murder as was the Protestant order of 
 the day then. 
 
 As well might the Dissenters now tremble at the recollection 
 of Servetus at the stake ; burned to death in an overflow of ardent 
 zeal by Calvin, Luther, and Company, as a Dissenter from the 
 new orthodox, about which each of them however differed widely 
 from the other. Free exercise of private judgment had just 
 become the new general rule, and as all general rules are proved 
 by an exception, Servetus was burned to establish a religious as 
 well as grammatical aphorism. 
 
 With the exception of a little weakness about the ghost of 
 “ Bloody Queen Mary,” which disturbs some, the Protestants of 
 Ireland are men of high intelligence, benevolence, and patriot* 
 ism, and if convinced of the safety, as they must be of the advan¬ 
 tage of a domestic legislature, they would labour to establish it; 
 but alas, many are impressed with the idea that if left alive they 
 would be basely used as instruments, and dishonourably excluded 
 from participating in the happiness and advantages it would con¬ 
 fer ; this is a deplorable delusion, a fatuous notion which no 
 process of reasoning can remove. The man who takes it into his 
 head that there is a conspiracy to poison him will refuse the most 
 wholesome food and eat of the most injurious—will turn from se¬ 
 curity and rush into danger^—will reject each friendly hand—call 
 kindness treachery, and will remain in a house crumbling into 
 ruin sooner than follow the sound advice of a friend and put it into 
 repair. 
 
 All Europe could not be a guarantee satisfactory to such a 
 man; nor could Coke, Bacon, and Blackstone, united, devise an 
 enactment which would afford repose to his perturbed spirit, or 
 banish from his diseased mind pharmaceutical fancies about prussic 
 and oxalic acids. Time may teach suspicious religionists to do 
 as three-fourths of mankind now do—smile at their weaknesses. 
 
 However Repealers may lament want of confidence and co¬ 
 operation on part of those who differ a little from them in form of 
 
32 
 
 prayer, they cannot be expected to make a national struggle de¬ 
 pendent on anything which they know to be chimerical. The 
 people of Ireland are now pledged to seek that relief on a whole¬ 
 sale scale which they had for forty-three years been humbly so¬ 
 liciting to obtain even by small instalments. 
 
 CHAPTER VIII. 
 
 CABINET ERRORS—NINETY-EIGHT-PEASANT SHOOTING-LORDS 
 
 OF THE SOIL-SLAVES-FREEMEN-MISREPRESENTATION. 
 
 The great source of British misgovernment towards Ireland is 
 British ignorance of her people and of her wants, not British in¬ 
 humanity. It is a manifest injustice to compose a Cabinet which 
 is to regulate the affairs of two different nations, exclusively of 
 the natives of but one of them, and the absurdity of this is the 
 more glaring, when it is recollected that England admits it is ne¬ 
 cessary for the well-being of all parts of the empire, that they 
 should be represented in the Commons. As to the idea of twenty- 
 eight Irish peers being of the least use amongst 450 English, it is 
 too absurd to notice. So then it is of wondrous import that a 
 handful of men should have the privilege of making complaints, 
 and that this handful should be Irish, but it is forsooth of no con¬ 
 sequence at all that any of the men who are to investigate, and in 
 fact decide for or against redress, should be Irish. It is no re¬ 
 flection on the talents of men, some of whom never saw Ireland, 
 others who saw it but for a brief time in their youth ; others who 
 paid but a flying visit to its capital, to say that they are utterly 
 unfit to act as her agents. No member of the Cabinet knows this 
 kingdom, its capabilities, its deficiencies, its wants, and its peo¬ 
 ple as the ruler should know the ruled, or the Superintendent 
 should know the Principal and the property he undertakes to 
 manage. It is charitable to suppose ministers believe as some 
 portions of the English and Scotch press tell them, that if the 
 Irish have any ideas of their own, they fall under the heads of 
 hatred of law and of order, thirst for blood-stained strife, con¬ 
 tempt of comfort, and love of total idleness; too indolent or too 
 stupid to think for themselves, and too excitable and silly not to 
 adopt at once each rash proposition, or rush into desperate 
 crimes suggested by any interested adventurer; no matter how 
 self-evident was the folly of the first, or how manifestly injurious 
 must be the consequences of the latter to themselves. That this 
 may be justly asserted of a few in some parts of Great Britain 
 and Ireland, is fact; but that it applies to more than a few in 
 either, or is peculiar to Ireland, is untrue. 
 
 A small section of the Irish nation, composed of half-resolved 
 
33 
 
 rebels, irritated to madness, and of some frightened wretches, 
 goaded to despair, got up what is called the insurrection of 1798. 
 The English at that period, and the amateur belligerents, who 
 then played soldiers, and assisted at the 44 battues” of peasant 
 shooting,* easily disposed of the comparative few who were en¬ 
 gaged (and of some who were not) ; the rebels too, were frequently 
 betrayed into their hands. Not having any fixed purpose or plan 
 of action, they ran wild as over-driven oxen ; did mischief alike to 
 friend and foe, and were soon knocked on the head. 
 
 The facility of so dealing with this medley of victims of op¬ 
 pression—of dupes—of the lawless—of the once forbearing—of 
 the heartless and of the broken-hearted, has led to an erroneous 
 impression, and it is now assumed that the Irish and the Esqui¬ 
 maux Indians are alike ignorant and afraid of gunpowder. That 
 a display of fireworks can always render Invisible the (supposed) 
 minor light of patriotism, and that blood-letting is the only cure 
 for periodical excitement in Ireland. This is the doctrine of the 
 loyal physical force party who upbraid the people for <c not going 
 to Clontarf,” 44 in disobedience of the proclamationthus to 
 accommodate their sanguinary propensities, by rushing unarmed 
 on pointed bayonets, and bringing matters to a crisis , when one 
 ■party was ready for slaughtering , and the other unprepared to act 
 on the defensive . It appears there are physical force men in the 
 Government as well as on the Chartist side; and there are some 
 in Ireland quite ready to indulge them, were they not restrained 
 by the influence of the true friends of this country, and of the 
 empire; and what is more, by the true servants of the God of 
 peace. 
 
 It is unnecessary to combat the absurdity of assuming, that a 
 rebellion in Ireland could be dealt with as in 1798, or to comment 
 on the universal ruin consequent on one shot into a crowd now 
 WHEN TWO MILLIONS OF MEN WOULD FEEL THE WOUND. May 
 Heaven grant the incorrectness of the opinion, 44 that nothing 
 but fear hinders the Irish from rebelling,” may not be prac¬ 
 tically proved. All good, all wise men will echo that prayer, 
 and will best inculcate the doctrine of peace, by pointing out at 
 once the sinfulness and the ruin of civil war. It is degrading to 
 an Irishman to be compelled to descend to combat the idea that 
 the Irish do not fall within Locke’s definition of a human being, 
 and can neither reason, compound, nor compare. The faculty of 
 abstraction, is certainly peculiarly English. One of the causes 
 whence has arisen the contempt for Irish intellect evinced by an 
 English oligarchy, and by much of the highly talented and highly 
 prejudiced press which it patronizes, is that feudal influence (the 
 
 * This expression refers to the fact, that numbers were shot who were not 
 rebels. 
 
 D 
 
3-1 
 
 real remains of barbarism,) long lingered here. There was also 
 a most uncompromising, and therefore irrational, adherence to 
 English Kings, after the good sense of that country had displaced 
 them. These things have induced our neighbours to consider 
 us always a century or two behind them in civilization, and 
 wisdom; our new lights being often their old ones. As to our 
 loyalty, we got a tolerably severe lesson from Cromwellites and 
 Williamites on that score. The law as laid down by England 
 was this: Irishmen, if you do not rebel the moment we do, and 
 join us in killing one King, and in hunting down another, we 
 will visit you with fire and sword, and rob every loyal gentleman 
 amongst you of his estates, and give them to our rebel soldiers, 
 but if, at any time you should venture to exercise your 
 own understandings, we will call that sedition, rebellious avant 
 courier , and we will indict you, and put you to gaol, and make 
 your nation one large guard-house. 
 
 As to the charge of feudalism, Ireland must plead guilty to 
 having fondled that vice rather longer than England did. The 
 Lord of the soil here, whether an oak of the forest, a transplanted 
 sapling, or a mere mushroom, was still the Lord ; and a portion of 
 the attachment the Irish are notorious for bearing to their native 
 soil, was bestowed on him who presided over it (whether he de¬ 
 served it or not) ; and kind-hearted Rustics tendered fealty with 
 a zeal suited to his position or hereditary claim. The ancient 
 Chieftain (often of regal blood) got the lion’s share, and the new 
 comer received in just proportion. It is pleasing to see an attach¬ 
 ment subsisting between landlord and tenant, but no man should 
 value such an attachment unless it be based on respect and esteem , 
 and these cannot result from any cause other than mutual worth. 
 
 The very worst effect of feudalism was the tenants’ voting 
 under its influence, making but one inquiry about a parliamentary 
 candidate—“ Does my landlord vote for him ?” Nothing so di¬ 
 rectly tends to brutalize a people as to be taught to have no 
 opinion on matters connected with their country’s welfare, and, 
 consequently, with their own; and nothing so thoroughly demo¬ 
 ralizes a people as observing loose swearing at elections not 
 merely countenanced but planned by persons in the upper classes 
 of society. 
 
 Whilst the people continued callous to the reproaches of con¬ 
 science and to the impulses of patriotism—whilst they voted under 
 the orders of men whose employment was the fabrication of a 
 constituency, and whose trade was a traffic in it—whilst the people 
 upheld a system by which they and their Christian brethren of 
 the same faith in England were oppressed*—and whilst they 
 elected as their representatives men who strenuously upheld that 
 
 * It is scarcely credited on the Continent that a Catholic population voted 
 regularly for candidates who voted and spoke against Catholic Emancipation, 
 
oppression—men who first sold the nation by wholesale, and af¬ 
 terwards its rights, privileges, and liberties by retail—whilst the 
 people did this, so long they were not called “a besotted popu¬ 
 lace and a demoralized mob,” as they are now designated ; but 
 from the moment that the masculine principle of freedom began 
 to operate on hitherto enslaved manhood—from the moment they 
 began to feel themselves no longer a proscribed race, and heard 
 themselves hailed as fellow-freemen, they also began to hearken to 
 the united voice of reason and of patriotism. 
 
 This, as a matter of course, led them to adopt the same en¬ 
 lightened view of Ireland as did Grattan, Bushe, Plunket, Curran, 
 Saurin, and such luminaries; and, strange to say, from the very 
 period when they dared to act on a coincidence of opinion with 
 these distinguished persons, and thus, for the first time, estab¬ 
 lished their claim to the most noble attributes of man—from that 
 moment they were insulted, assailed, and misrepresented; their 
 exercise of sound discretion—in voting for patriots in preference to 
 place-hunters—was called ingratitude to their benefactors; re¬ 
 spect for their religion and clergy, was bigotry and superstition ; 
 their appeal for justice to their native land, was sedition ; patriot¬ 
 ism was rebellion; and now, obedience to a law, however unwisely 
 put in force, is called cowardice; for the people were charged by the 
 anti-Repeal party with having staid from Clontarf through cowar¬ 
 dice, not respect for the law. 
 
 CHAPTER IX. 
 
 MISLEADING THE GOVERNMENT-DEALING WITH EFFECTS; CAUSES 
 
 UNTOUCHED-GOVERNMENT CONTRACT TO FURNISH THE 
 
 LIBERATOR WITH AGITATION SUPPLIES SCRUPULOUSLY FUL¬ 
 FILLED-WHO DID THE DEED-ARM AMENTS MORE ORNAMENTAL 
 
 THAN USEFUL AT PRESENT-PICTURE OF IRELAND. 
 
 The people of Ireland, especially the rising generation, are 
 thoroughly impressed with the invaluable importance of a domes¬ 
 tic legislature, and they at least expect to see it yet established. 
 
 There is an influential class which misleads ministers on this 
 subject, and induces them to fancy that if O’Connell were im¬ 
 prisoned and the Catholic clergy pensioned the national voice 
 would be silenced—grievances be forgotten—misrule pass un¬ 
 noticed and Ireland be with impunity consigned to that neglect 
 she has a right to dread from those who negatived a motion 
 stating that she had grievances ; but if that negative plunged 
 her into despair as to spontaneous sisterly sympathy and justice, 
 it has animated her into the thrilling hope of self-won redress, 
 though it may be granted on the cold ground of expediency—a 
 ground where gratitude has no abiding place. 
 
 d 2 
 
There is a second class which contributes also to mislead 
 Government and prevent their arriving at the real state of the 
 case, this class knows the truth and has to answer to conscience 
 for withholding it; timidity is their sole excuse ; they hear those 
 who support their conscientious opinion that Repeal would benefit 
 Ireland, branded as rebels, accused of seeking to dismember the 
 empire ! when, in fact, the accused think that if their object were 
 carried, such an event possible now , would be impossible then. 
 Unfortunately, a salutary warning has been mistaken for a se¬ 
 ditious cry, and a prudent caution to beware of postponing 
 justice only to the period when England may be in difficulty , has 
 been tortured into a base and dastardly hint to the people to rebel. 
 
 This sad misconstruction of good advice has terrors for some, 
 but should have no influence over those who are conscious of 
 purity of motive, and are deeply solicitous to see all chance of 
 collision between now strongly-opposed parties, not merely post¬ 
 poned, but annihilated ; such may thus unhesitatingly address the 
 government: “You have stationed 40,000 soldiers in Ireland; 
 you have placed her ports under the surveillance of ships of 
 war—you think these measures absolutely necessary to maintain 
 Ireland as an appendage to the British Crown, or you do not; 
 if you do not, why resort to such menaces; in such case they 
 are insidious attempts 4 to provoke the caper that you seem to 
 ‘ chide ;* but if you do seriously believe that the integrity of 
 the empire at this moment depends on an army; that in fact 
 Ireland is ripe for rebellion, will you meet the danger solely 
 by increasing the military force, without reflecting that the 
 cause remaining, the danger travels on, pari passu , if not 
 more rapidly than efforts directed merely to grapple with it 
 by military force when it shall have reached its climax , but not 
 at all to prevent its arrival there.” This is absolutely staking 
 the destinies of an empire on the result of a battle; and it is a 
 poor excuse to say that that dreadful consummation of mis¬ 
 management is not likely to take place in our time if the military 
 force be looked to and kept up. This is the achme of selfishness. 
 Have we no children, and no property to leave to them ? Can 
 any man who loves Ireland, and sincerely regards England, wit¬ 
 ness this state of things without raising his voice however feeble, 
 and exerting his abilities however limited, to rouse government 
 to resort to the only sure mode of averting an awful catastrophe ?* 
 will not the combined voice of patriot Repealers—of Federalists— 
 
 * The Duke of Wellington cannot have forgotten his own expression to Lord 
 
 G-- in 1829, when accounting to him for the steps he was then taking and the 
 
 course lie wished Lord G. to pursue; that expression was too strong, too im- 
 X>ortant to be forgotten ; it was uttered in private life, therefore the writer will 
 not repeat it, but it was too momentous to have escaped the Duke’s recollection. 
 The writer had the particulars from a British peer, a strong supporter of this 
 government. The expression alluded to is even more applicable to this period 
 than to 1829. 
 
jrn one word, of Imperialists, and of all classes of Christian men ex¬ 
 claim against the imprudence of dealing with effects and leaving 
 causes untouched ? will they not declaim against the monoptical 
 vision of any government which acts on such a principle ? If 
 the government had contracted to furnish O’Connell and the 
 Repeal Association with a supply of arguments and powers to 
 work on the people, they could not have fulfilled that contract 
 with more srupulous fidelity—arguments and powers which have 
 enlisted in Ireland’s behalf the clearest demonstrations of Euro¬ 
 pean and of Transatlantic sympathy. With all the firmness of 
 freemen, all the fervour of patriots, and all the peaceful but bold 
 spirit of Christians, Irishmen shouldask the government, do they 
 seriously expect to establish permanent tranquillity in Ireland by 
 means of 40 or 100,000 men in red coats—or by compelling O'Con¬ 
 nell to address Ireland from Kilmainham instead of Burgh-quay — 
 or by asking a parliament not too popular now, to become less so 
 by passing a bill for the more rapid suppression of popular feeling 
 and more prompt imprisonment of the only man in existence who 
 possesses the affection of seven millions of human beings—not 
 to speak of the others who are his fellow-sufferers, and of the 
 Leaders of a Press which has endeared itself to the people of Ire¬ 
 land ? Is it not in evidence that one popular leader collected, 
 and what is more difficult, at a word dispersed millions of brave 
 and bold men? Can ministers believe that he could have at¬ 
 tained to that power if there were no grievances —no mismanage¬ 
 ment—no misgovern men t ? Have they read the charges brought 
 against them by their predecessors in office, and have they re¬ 
 flected on the sins of omisssion and commission they, in retort, 
 attributed to their accusers ? Suppose half of what each said of 
 the other to be true—suppose half what is stated in parliament be 
 fact—or suppose one party only has truth on its side, and only 
 a moderate share to its lot, can they, as men of honour, venture 
 to assert that Ireland has been justly and prudently governed ; 
 and that the Catholic clergy, O’Connell, and the Repeal Asso¬ 
 ciation have called into existence the discontented spirit which 
 pervades this land, and have fabricated the grievances of which 
 Ireland has so long complained ? 
 
 Ministers and Governors of Ireland, pause, reflect, and ask 
 yourselves if, without your cordial, fearless, and prompt adminis¬ 
 tration of justice to Ireland, the Priesthood, O’Connell, or the 
 Association, or least of all, your 40,000 soldiers can calm the 
 popular mind ; and if without redressing one wrong you can 
 hope to extinguish general excitement and allay universal discon¬ 
 tent. On what page of history,, on what theory relative to the 
 human mind do you ground the supposition that any civilized 
 people are incapable of appreciating the advantage of a home 
 government, or could be insensible to the loss of it or totally 
 
38 
 
 unconscious of neglect or injustice on part of another nation pro¬ 
 fessing to govern it on terms of equality, but in fact treating it 
 as an unworthy dependant; no people, except the Capadocians, 
 whose name is therefore consigned to eternal infamy, ever de¬ 
 clared themselves unfitted for domestic legislation; and can you 
 imagine Irishmen in the nineteenth century—Irishmen employed 
 all over the civilized world, and universally considered intelligent 
 and acute—quite ignorant of its value ? Especially after under¬ 
 going for forty-four years a series of injurious experiments made by 
 a foreign (thus may be designated a non-resident) administration, 
 the results of which experiments have been total decay of manu¬ 
 factures—annihilation of commerce—utter neglect of national re¬ 
 sources—exportation of aristocracy—a deserted metropolis—ab- 
 scence of modern scientific improvements (as railroads, &c), in 
 lieu of all which we have Ribbon Societies—party feuds—agra¬ 
 rian disturbances—Orange Clubs—bigoted and bitter sectarian 
 associations—tract unions—proselytizing settlements—mid-day 
 No-Popery meetings—midnight outrages—agitating clergy of 
 every sect, without exception—demagogues—popular leaders— 
 two millions and a-half of paupers— eight millions of malcontents — 
 coercion bills—-arms’ bills—government proclamations—state pro¬ 
 secutions—new fortifications—war steamers-—“ Spies ”—Repeal 
 Associations, and a standing army !!!—so much for a forty-four 
 years’ experiment to carry on the business of a nation without a 
 a full representation, or a domestic legislature. 
 
 Where is the man who, values truth, will venture to draw his 
 pen over one item in this bill of particulars on the plea of its not 
 being fact ? Some few in England assert that the Irish are weak- 
 minded and unfit to have a voice in making the laws by which 
 they are to be governed; this reproach can be grounded only on 
 the fact, that the patience of Ireland has been long practised on, 
 not merely with impunity, but almost without remonstrance. 
 The comment comes with a bad grace from British lips or 
 British pens. 
 
 CHAPTER X. 
 
 IMPRISONMENT OF O’CONNELL—A LANDED PROPRIETOR^ APPEAL 
 
 TO THE GOVERNMENT-WHO IS TO LEAD THE PEOPLE?-REBEL 
 
 KINGS — RI BRAND-MEN. 
 
 Rulers of this empire, delude not yourselves with the vain hope 
 that your difficulties, and Ireland’s grievances and discontent 
 will be in any way diminished by the committal of O’Connell, 
 or that your beds will, be of roses if you pass the threatened 
 
39 
 
 gagging bill— Malus est enim custos diuturnitatis metus , contrague 
 benevolentia fidelis vel ad perpetuitatem , Cicero.* This parlia¬ 
 ment may pass it, but every free state in either hemisphere will 
 denounce it, and any popular House of Commons will expunge it 
 from the statutes, and could such a bill, or O’Connell’s committal 
 be the amount of your exertions for the aristocracy of Ireland ? 
 who now, opposed to their tenantry and countrymen in general, 
 are clinging to you in helpless confidence, and perhaps in em¬ 
 barrassing dependence ? Purely not. There yet linger hopes, 
 that you will be influenced by the suggestions of those who prac¬ 
 tise peace and solicit justice, rather than by the stimulants of 
 others, for whom civil war has no terror; for the heat and toil of 
 that would fall on England; and some of the spolia bcllorum> 
 they fancy, would fall to them as such gory gifts of Govern¬ 
 ment did to their predecessors. Such men dream of conquest, 
 without reflecting on, or caring for the common ruin attendant 
 on even one victory. Every man who does not fear to speak 
 the truth will tell the Government that they are only post¬ 
 poning danger and tying down England’s right arm. j* There is 
 not a landed proprietor in Ireland t who ought not thus to address 
 the Government, “ what security will there be for my property, 
 and be it large or trifling, it is my all, and I am one of a class in 
 whom the fee of Ireland is said to be vested , both as trustees for the 
 people , for the welfare of the state , and for our families . I ask 
 what security there will be for my property if the people lose confi¬ 
 dence in those leaders who enjoin , implore , almost command that 
 peace should be preserved ? if the people imagine they are delud¬ 
 ing them by holding out hopes, that a better form of Govern¬ 
 ment would be attained by peaceful means. § Of all other periods, 
 was not this the very time when it became vitally important, by 
 every means to divert the minds of the people from thinking of 
 succeeding by force ? Leading Repealers had not merely to 
 caution them to beware of being dazzled by the success of rebel¬ 
 lion in America (that has been long before them without lead¬ 
 ing them to rashness, though it misled the parents of many of 
 them) ; but the advocates of peace had to struggle against the 
 effects of modern examples of the triumphs of insurrection. 
 
 * Fear is a bad keeper of that which is intended to be lastingbenevolence, 
 on the contrary, will perpetuate fidelity. 
 
 f The writer may have placed himself under the battery of his college con¬ 
 temporary, and old and esteemed acquaintance, the Attorney General for Ire- 
 hand. Such a consideration has not the slightest weight with a man who knows 
 that he is doing his duty. He will therefore, remain in that position indifferent 
 to danger, until that duty shall have been completed. 
 
 t Of course, all men having property, will take the same views.. 
 
 § Nothing so clearly proves how strongly Repealers inculcated obedience to 
 the law, as the very fact that they said they defied the Government to prevent 
 Repeal agitation. That was clearly upholding the principle, that as long as the 
 people had the law on their side, no Government could put them down, for every, 
 peasant knew that illegal meetings could be put down. 
 
40 
 
 Canada was before their eyes—France, Greece, Belgium, shewed 
 them that rebel hands could bestow diadems, and rebel peasants 
 confer the proud title of the 44 Lord’s anointed.” Does not all 
 Europe at this instant, see rebel Kings in fashion, and scions of 
 legitimacy cut? Have popular leaders no difficulty in dissuading 
 the people to prefer peace, prayer, and petition, when they are 
 looking at three royal ermines not yet dry from rebel blood, 
 trickling from the rebellious hands which lifted subjects to the 
 throne, and flung upon their shoulders the mantle of the Mo¬ 
 narch. Ministers, and Ministerialists, do you fancy that the keen- 
 sighted people of Ireland are blind to all you wish them not to 
 see? that they cannot reflect on these notorious events, unless 
 the Catholic clergy and O’Connell enlarge their understandings, 
 and open their eyes. Would that you could be persuaded now to 
 exercise the whole range of your own understandings on the 
 events before you. 
 
 For many years, one of your ablest Journals* has headed a 
 column with the remarkable words, 44 state of the country,” can 
 you venture to lay all that is to be found under that heading to 
 O’Connell, who was then silent, and to the Repeal Association 
 which did not then exist. Beware of a continuation of the 
 
 SYSTEM OF MISRULE-MISRULE, THE PARENT OF LAWLESSNESS: 
 
 AND BEWARE OF THE SPREADING OF A COMBINATION WHICH IS 
 THE MOST FEARFUL RESULT OF CONTEMPT FOR THE LAW. The 
 
 Repeal agitation has checked it, its name is secret society— 
 ribbandism —its characteristics are midnight fires, midnight 
 burglaries, plunder, and blood. Repealers denounced it, Re¬ 
 pealers are its bane and terror, for they seek to substitute, not 
 to destroy—to alter unwise laws, not to violate any. Soldiers 
 and police will never exterminate Ribbandism.f In nine cases 
 out of ten, they arrive when the mischief is done; but, the des¬ 
 perado who lives next door to a Repealer, lives next door to one 
 of the national police. Repealers are everywhere, police are in 
 fixed stations ; the fear of Repeal Wardens, and Repealers, 
 greatly assists in keeping down Ribbandism amongst those who 
 want not the repeal of any law of God or of man—they break 
 both with equal indifference. 
 
 *The Evening Packet. 
 
 f The writer speaks with the best feelings towards the noble imperial army, 
 proud to have held a commission in it; and also with commendation of the 
 police : for obvious reasons, he laments that a body so much in contact with 
 the people were engaged in the State Trial affairs—it was an unwise step. 
 
41 
 
 CHAPTER XI. 
 
 FIXITY OF TENURE-EDUCATION-CHURCH QUESTION. 
 
 Fixity of tenure is not a well-selected term ; fixity is an obsolete 
 word, meaning (according to all lexicographers) “ coherence of 
 parts,” and nothing more. Like all other obsolete and obscure 
 terms it misleads and does mischief. 
 
 Some landed proprietors think it so comprehensive that it will 
 involve confiscation of their estates; and some tenants fancy that 
 this mysterious term includes reduction in rent, and no power to 
 eject. 
 
 The proper term for the required arrangement between land¬ 
 lord and tenant is—SECURITY FOR CAPITAL. It would 
 be a delusion to expect that any legislative measure would pro¬ 
 ceed beyond this, for it would be difficult to go further without 
 perpetrating a fraud. 
 
 Labour is the poor man’s capital—for this he requires secu- 
 curity. This is effected in different ways in different counties 
 in England; for instance, in Surrey, Sussex, Berks, and Wilts, 
 the labour of the occupant and its results are more closely 
 estimated than in other counties; but in all, custom would secure 
 at common law protection to the tenant for his outlay. In those 
 counties allowances are carried to the utmost. If the landlord 
 wished to re-enter into possession, he would not only have to pay 
 the first cost of even a hedge-row, planted as a fence, but the in¬ 
 creased value from its growth each year, inasmuch as a hedge of 
 five years* old is a better fence than one which had not attained 
 to height, and the tenant would get the advanced price as a sort 
 of interest on his first outlay of time and money. Ploughed land, 
 ready for sowing, would be valued inclusive of the cost of plough¬ 
 ing. Fallow land and manured land would be estimated with a 
 proper compensation for loss of time whilst in fallow, and the value 
 of the manure would be fully estimated. In other counties the 
 valuation is not so minute—but in all, the tenant is protected, and 
 would be paid for his improvements according to the rate estab¬ 
 lished by custom in the locality. 
 
 Nothing can be more consonant with justice than that the 
 tenant should be amply remunerated for any necessary improve¬ 
 ment—nothing more unjust than to give him a right to be paid 
 for anything which is not necessary, unless an agreement to that 
 effect be made previous to his commencing the work. When any 
 law is passed to regulate arrangements between a Letter and a 
 Taker of land, great caution will be requisite if the act have an ex 
 post facto reference, and it would be a hard case that it should 
 not, for good tenants who have improved should be protected by 
 
42 
 
 the proposed new law. The utmost care will, however, in these 
 cases be necessary, for deep injury might be unjustly inflicted on 
 some benevolent landlords, as well as on others of a different 
 character. Instances of this could be easily given, but they would 
 occupy too much space in a pamphlet touching on several subjects. 
 
 Those Irish landlords who are afraid of being ruined by im¬ 
 provements made by their tenantry, know very little of the Irish 
 peasantry. They may be pretty certain that for the next half 
 century such a revolution will not take place in the minds of the 
 peasantry as would convert them into ornamental and fancy 
 farmers. The children of the present proprietors (not to speak 
 of this generation) will have ample time to provide against the 
 effects of speculative innovations on the approved methods of 
 farming; nay it is to be feared that a very long period will elapse 
 before even the recognized principles of good farming will be 
 generally adopted in Ireland. The Irish people are much at¬ 
 tached to old customs aud habits, and the taste fox improvements 
 will not progress too rapidly. 
 
 Arrangements between landlord and tenant, enactments to 
 give security for capital, whether consisting of money or labour, 
 will be of considerable service; so will the introduction of national 
 works, on a great scale (none else would be of any use), and im¬ 
 mediate evidence of this will be afforded in a country which re¬ 
 sponds to the slightest encouragement, and has survived so many 
 centuries of oppression, mismanagement, coercion, and neglect. 
 Measures, however, which are applicable solely to the physical 
 condition of the people will be greatly impaired in their value, 
 will, in fact, be rendered of temporary instead of permanent uti¬ 
 lity, unless accompanied by one which will bear directly on their 
 moral condition; EDUCATION must form the principal part 
 of any system calculated to effect the permanent welfare of Ire¬ 
 land, or of any nation standing in need of it. Goldsmith very 
 justly reprobated the paltry and now hacknied maxim of Pope, 
 “ that an honest man was the noblest work of God/* Taking the 
 word honest in its plain and ordinary signification, this was a 
 truly degrading view of humanity, and almost an impious one of 
 the power of the Creator. A man, to be c< the noblest work,’* 
 ought to be something more than not a thief—be ought to be in 
 a condition to be an actively useful member of the community. 
 Honesty is but a negative virtue. Goldsmith himself took a very 
 poor view of human nature when he described as “ the Golden 
 Age” the period when “ every rood of ground maintained its 
 manthat must have been the halcyon epoch in rural life, ere 
 shoes and stockings were heard of, and when shirts and trowsers 
 were deemed superfluous luxuries. Local attachments, supine¬ 
 ness, and that sort of indolent content which grows out of igno¬ 
 rance of or indifference to comfort, are injurions to nations as well 
 
43 
 
 as to individuals. A mud cabin, and a particular acre of boggy 
 or even fertile soil, in which a man’s grandfather happened to 
 have planted a potato, would not be either over valued or battled 
 for by a peasant who was taught by education to feel himself qua¬ 
 lified for a more extended sphere. Such a man would revolt from 
 the idea of settling for life on, and fighting for, the miserable 
 corner, so sentimentally lauded in Goldsmith’s pretty Bucolic. 
 Feasants see with sorrow and wounded pride how many doors ig¬ 
 norance closes against them—how many opportunities of better¬ 
 ing their condition are lost for want of knowing how “ to read, 
 write, and cypher.” The statistics of crime show that the far 
 greater number of poor offenders cannot read. The press teems 
 with cheap and useful works, public houses are comparatively un¬ 
 frequented, and the advantage of NOW facilitating the peasant’s 
 approach to useful knowledge cannot be too strongly inculcated. 
 The truly Reverend and revered Mr. Mathew has, under divine 
 blessing, taught the present generation to look with just abhor¬ 
 rence on intemperance. It is the duty of a paternal legislature 
 to supply the place of that illustrious man to the rising gene¬ 
 ration, and, by education, to lead them into the paths of industry, 
 least they fall into the sin which their parents forsook.. 
 
 The natural consequences of improvement in the moral con¬ 
 dition of any peasantry are, respect for good laws, love of order, 
 desire for comfort, and taste for industry—industry, which is the 
 twin sister of religion, protecting the mind from the snares of 
 idleness, and her handmaid, vice; for true is the Irish proverb,, 
 that “an idler’s brain is Satan’s workshop.” By education is 
 here understood reading, writing, arithmetic, and some simple but 
 general information, particularly the rudiments of agriculture to 
 such as are intended for that pursuit. It is true that a know¬ 
 ledge of reading and writing is not essential to the learning of 
 some trades, but it is essential to stimulate youth to aspire to 
 these trades rather than crowd on each other in a small village. 
 How many Irish and English persons of the upper classes decline 
 to travel solely because they do not know any foreign language ? 
 and how reluctant are most persons to admit this deficiency in 
 their education ? Can it then be wondered at that an Irish pea¬ 
 sant, who is as sensitively alive to ridicule as any man in the 
 highest classes of society, will not leave that home where his ig¬ 
 norance is best concealed, and where he associates only with those 
 labouring under the same deficiencies ? 
 
 Education of the peasant—a full share of freeman’s rights— 
 a representative body elected on sound principles—impartial ad¬ 
 ministration of justice, and good protective laws for all classes— 
 a state outlay at present, to meet the effects of long continued 
 injustice, and a state encouragement to companies and indi- 
 
44 
 
 viduals willing to expend large sums in undertakings of national 
 utility—bounties on the struggling efforts of the poor, as on fish¬ 
 eries, &c. &c.—all these will make Ireland a source of wealth, 
 instead of being a burthen to the empire, and a drain on the public 
 purse. An excuse for keeping up a standing army (that truest evi¬ 
 dence of bad government), and agrarian outrage, will disappear 
 with distress, just as the riots in the manufacturing districts in 
 England do. The gentry of Ireland have not the means of atoning 
 for the wholesale fraud and wholesale plunder committed on Ire¬ 
 land by British Governments. The Times newspaper calls on 
 the Irish landlords, who are amongst the heaviest sufferers by 
 British misrule, to indemnify the Irish people for the losses—the 
 ruin—which the system of misgovernment that able paper, un¬ 
 happily for Ireland, countenances, has inflicted and is hourly 
 inflicting on this portion of the Queen’s dominions. 
 
 The English admirers of the politics supported by the Times , 
 which talks of “My money,’’ and “ why should we be taxed for the 
 benefit of the Irish,” will act justly if they recollect that when 
 they apply the term “ My money” to public money, thus making 
 it exclusively English—they either declare that they intend to 
 rob Ireland openly or that the Union is repealed ; for until that 
 event takes place England is not entitled to talk of her money. 
 “ Our money,” as used by the English, is not to refer to Eng¬ 
 land only, “ our” must include Ireland; but setting aside the jus¬ 
 tice and taking the outlay as a mere question of profit, the case of 
 Ireland is quite as strong. A nation as well as a company can 
 work mines at profit, and Ireland will amply repay the empire 
 for developing her resources. These statements are not mere 
 declamation, they are the results of a course of reasoning based 
 on observation of very many facts, and on well-founded assump¬ 
 tion with regard to others. Whilst education is advocated, it 
 should be a paramount consideration that physical remedies must 
 be applied to physical distress—that hunger will not be appeased 
 by theory—that two millions three hundred and odd thousand 
 have been declared by the Commissioners of Poor-laws to be 
 paupers, and that feeding is a preliminary to learning ; but, alas, 
 bigotry and party spirit will not allow either to be effected with¬ 
 out thrusting in their Gorgon Heads, paralizing sound policy 
 and petrifying benevolence. “ No national works” (i. e. no food) 
 says party spirit, because asking for them would cast an imputa¬ 
 tion on the justice, the policy, and the humanity of the go¬ 
 vernment we support, such measures not having originated with 
 them. “ No education,” says bigotry, unless the party wishing to 
 learn to read shall consent to receive instruction at the sacrifice 
 of a religious scruple. 
 
 The pretext for quarrel, the apple of discord is here unhappily 
 the Bible. The most wealthy and powerful, but not the most nu- 
 
4 5 
 
 merous party, stands at the portal of the Temple, of the Muses 
 with a Bible in one hand and a sword in the other. You shall 
 not enter say these gaolers of literature, you shall not learn how 
 to read, unless you consent to make a class-book of this work, 
 about the meaning of which the cleverest men in Europe differed 
 before and ever since printing was invented, and about which 
 they differ still. 
 
 If any unprejudiced man will attentively investigate the ques¬ 
 tion, whether the Scriptures are circulated by sectaries of every 
 grade of Protestantism without note or comment, he will perceive 
 that it requires no small portion of political boldness (for religion 
 which is always fair and open has nothing to do with this question) 
 toconvert into a “stumbling blockof offel)ce ,, and barto education, 
 the Catholics’ objection to circulate the Scriptures without note 
 or comment. History mourns whilst she records, the cruelties of 
 the Pagan Bigot, the devastations of the Goth and Vandal, whose 
 career was marked by the wholesale destruction of the works of 
 the learned, but these lamentable demonstrations of the perver¬ 
 sity of human intellect sink into insignificance when compared 
 with modern barbarism which, on the pretext of rendering ser¬ 
 vice to God, arrays itself to withold education from a whole 
 nation unless they shall consent to purchase it by dereliction 
 from religious duty ! There is a mixture of the ludicrous with 
 the horrible when w r e read in the daily press that a class of religion¬ 
 ists, after abusing their “ Papist” fellow-sinners, and forging fet¬ 
 ters for his mind by excluding him from the benefits of educa¬ 
 tion actually chaunts the Doxology ! ! ! Thus did the benighted 
 members of the Inquisition of old. They called themselves Ca¬ 
 tholic Christians, assumed the attributes of God, and wreaked 
 their bigoted fury on the Jews, His chosen people—sung a Te 
 T>eum and commanded an auto dafe.* 
 
 Is it not foretold in Scripture that there should be a variety 
 of opinions on religious subjects ? Where is the Scripture war¬ 
 rant for coercion, or for more than advice to induce a man to 
 adopt any particular form of religion ? Where in Scripture is to 
 be found more than mild remonstrance, rebuke, and separation, 
 when unheeded ? 
 
 It is not necessary to trouble the reader with reference to 
 the Old and New Testaments, and to common sense to prove 
 that Scripture requires teaching and expounding. It is quite 
 sufficient for the writer’s purposes to establish a charge of either 
 duplicity, inconsistency, or ignorance of facts against those who 
 arraign the Catholic clergy for refusing to permit the Scripture 
 to be circulated amongst their flocks without note or comment.! 
 
 * Heretic burning in Spain. 
 
 f The Catholic clergy and laity circulate, and anxiously desire to circulate, 
 the Scriptures with notes and comments explanatory of their doctrines; and 
 these rotes are taken from the works of the earliest, most able, and most pious 
 commentators. 
 
If these be unnecessary appendages to the Scriptures, how comes 
 the Rev. Mr. Doddesley’s Bible I Expositor to be a standard Pro¬ 
 testant work ? Why is Scotts* and Henry’s edition of the Bible 
 (a work filled with the most copious notes) in universal use 
 amongst Protestants ? Why is Bagster’s edition* of the New 
 Testament an edition expressly intended for general use being 
 actually printed in pocket size, and called a pocket edition. 
 Why is this standard, this beautifully got up and lately published 
 Protestant edition of the Scriptures, not merely published with 
 explanatory notes and comments, but with the most gross libels 
 and bitter attacks on the Catholic religion appended in notes?! 
 What terms can characterise the hardihood of men who allow the 
 Catholic only an option between giving to his child editions of 
 Scripture with Protestant notes and rude controversial assaults 
 on his creed, or placing in the hands of infancy the Song of 
 Soloman, or the Revelations, without any explanation whatsoever. 
 But says the gaoler of education you may select some other part 
 of Scripture, provided you consent not to expound it in the 
 school according to the interpretation of your church! ! ! Let 
 the Papist (as they call him) reply. 
 
 “ In the first place, I protest against your right to dictate to 
 me at all; I have just as much right to insist on the Douay ver¬ 
 sion of the Scriptures (which I freely and joyfully circulate,) 
 being used in your schools, (for it is part of my discipline, that 
 the Scriptures require explanation, and that they should be pub¬ 
 lished with note and comment,) as you have to insist on the 
 Scriptures being circulated without notes. But how glaring is 
 your injustice and inconsistency, when it can be proved, by 
 going into any booksellers shop, that you only profess to circu¬ 
 late the Scriptures without notes, for it is a part of your practice, 
 that they should be published with them. More than half your 
 editions of the Scriptures are published with notes, but if you 
 sanctioned the issue of but a single edition with notes, you ad¬ 
 mitted the 'principle of their utility , and cannot without flagrant 
 inconsistency , denounce the practice in the case of another. You 
 are at variance with yourself, you do the very thing for which 
 you condemn me; dare you assert that you do not publish the 
 Scriptures with notes and comments? Can you deny that, you 
 explain and expound the Scriptures to your children, nay, that 
 you hire illiterate men, often traders on your credulity, and send 
 them to the cabins of the Irish peasantry, to expound the Scripture 
 according to your Anti-Catholic views, and will you descend to a 
 subterfuge, and pretend that there is any real difference between 
 impressing your comment by oral instruction, and printing 
 that same comment. Is it not even safer to print it ? Would you 
 give the 6th chapter of St. John to your children, and remain 
 
 *The Writer uses this edition from its being so portable when travelling. 
 
 fSee note to 2 Thess. iii. 
 
47 
 
 silent ? If you did not station a Protestant sentinel over that 
 chapter, could you hope that the unsophisticated child would call 
 the words of the Redeemer florid metaphorical orientalisms, and 
 join in your protest ? Would you not rush with parental soli¬ 
 citude to save him from Popery, or from the Deism conse¬ 
 quent on taking the Capharnaumite view, that Christ’s assertions 
 were too hard for belief.” Assuredly, you are too honorable, too 
 candid, not to admit that you would not allow your child to take 
 that chapter as the Royal Head of your Church, and the Episcopal 
 Bench command you in the preamble to the thirty-nine articles, 
 to take those rules of your faith, namely, in “ their literal and 
 grammatical sense, and according to their plain full meaning/* 
 and that you must “ not draw them aside in any way”—you are 
 too fervent a lover of truth not to avow that you teach your 
 child your exposition of that, and of other chapters ; and that your 
 exposition is diametrically opposed to the literal and grammatical 
 meaning which the Catholic adopts, and that your interpretation, 
 he it right or wrong, does draw seventeen verses of that chapter 
 aside from their plain meaning, and that to suit your interpreta¬ 
 tion of one single verse, you call these seventeen verses rhetorical 
 figures, else they flatly contradict your doctrine. Well then, I a 
 Catholic, desire that the exposition of my church be given in a 
 note, so that my child can refer to it when I am not present, and 
 I now repeat, and defy you to deny it, that you orally and in 
 print do just what you impute to me as a crime, because I make 
 the rule absolute. But again, even if I could not prove, as I 
 have done, a charge of inconsistency. I can convict you of in¬ 
 justice, for attempting to interfere between me and my right to a 
 portion of my own money, allocated for general educational pur¬ 
 poses, and allocated without any condition being made by the 
 grantors (the parliament), but clogged with conditions, by you, 
 who are merely like myself, not legislators, but recipients of im¬ 
 perial bounty. Some of this money has been wrung from the 
 sweat of my brow, and I demand my fair and unfettered propor¬ 
 tion of the advantages to be derived by an outlay for national pur¬ 
 poses. You have not the shadow of right to dictate to mein any 
 thing, but less in religious subjects, than in any other matter of 
 importance ; and were it possible, you have less than no right to 
 dictate to me on matters connected with religion. Be content 
 with having appropriated to your clergy the property of mine ; 
 with having seized my churches, and converted them into bat¬ 
 teries to assail my creed ; with having for three hundred years 
 proscribed that creed, and hunted down that clergy; with having 
 manacled me by penal statutes, confiscated my lands, and exiled 
 my forefathers for loyalty to those against whom you rebelled. 
 I can forgive the persecution, I do not mourn over the spoliation ; 
 I cannot recall the exiled chieftain, nor do I seek to avenge my 
 
48 
 
 country’s wrongs, I can pray for my oppressors, and I do not re¬ 
 vert to those deplorable scenes to stimulate myself to wrath, or 
 to keep up sinful animosity ; my religion teaches me to forgive, 
 and oh, for the love of the God of peace, allow me to forget, but 
 hear my unalterable resolve—you shall never lead me to counte¬ 
 nance insidious attacks on the doctrines of my religion, or overt 
 ones on the discipline of my Church, I will purchase no temporal 
 benefit at the risk of divine displeasure; you may, by superior and 
 armed force deprive me of the rights of man, but not even to that, 
 were it ten-fold greater, will I yield one iota of what I hold to 
 be my duty to God, and to my Church. You may blight my 
 Worldly prospects—my immortal soul you shall not imperil.” 
 
 Could Protestants respect Catholics who consented that their 
 children should learn religion from any book edited in a manner, 
 of which they strongly disapproved, and deficient in that which 
 they held to be an essential concomitant exposition. Let theo¬ 
 logians and metaphisieians amuse themselves with this propo¬ 
 sition : suppose the Protestant to be the true religion, and the 
 Catholic in error ; suppose the Catholic thinks otherwise, but 
 from being what is called an 66 easy man,” and from giving up 
 this little point, and that little point, at last without real heart - 
 felt conviction , slides into the Established religion, is his soul in 
 less danger by having professed the true religion, believing it to 
 be false, or by professing the false religion, believing it to be 
 true ?* There is another view of this case.—Is ignorance fa¬ 
 vourable or unfavourable to Protestantism ? Which is most likely 
 to embrace that creed, the ignorant or the educated man ? The 
 man who can read, or the man who cannot ? The Protestant who 
 places the slightest obstacle to education, (and asking any one to 
 do what his religion forbids, raises a certain barrier,) virtually 
 declares that his church’s hopes are fixed on conversions amongst 
 the illiterate. Here again, it is respectfully submitted that Pro- 
 
 * For the writer’s part, he looks on the Mahommedan who conscientiously 
 adheres to what he believes to be the true mode of worshipping God, as being 
 in a safer position than the Catholic who, without considering it essential to his 
 salvation, becomes a Protestant; or than the Protestant who, with on t such"con- 
 viction, becomes a Catholic. It is humbly hoped, that men will be judged ac¬ 
 cording to the light given them, and the writer boldly asserts, that he considers 
 the Mahommedan or Hindoo safer than the proselytizer by trade (whether 
 Catholic or Protestant), who attempts to make some converts by insidious 
 means, and who by falsehoods, by worldly lures, or by intimidation, endeavours 
 to turn a man from the religion he thinks safe, only to lead him reluctantly to 
 one in which he feels no security. An ably conducted Dublin newspaper (the 
 Mail ) has lately vaunted much of the conversions, to the law-Established Church, 
 which took place amongst certain ancient Irish families. If the editor will re¬ 
 flect on the pains and penalties of professing the Catholic faith in those con¬ 
 verting days, and of the lures and rewards for deserting it, he will perhaps 
 revise his list. Penal Laws will convert the weak and worldly, but confirm the 
 bold and truly pious. Let the editor credit the Catholic religion with conver¬ 
 sions made from it by terror, for life, limb, and fortune, and he may strike his 
 balance when he pleases. 
 
49 
 
 testant declarations, and Protestant acts are at variance. They 
 ascribe to ignorance the existence of “ Popery” in Ireland— 
 and they annex a condition to education which amounts to a veto. 
 
 It is certainly good policy to prevent a nation doomed to op¬ 
 pression, from receiving the benefits of education; for it is a 
 dangerous experiment to oppress an educated people—revolution 
 would be their commentary on such a course. Perpetual agi¬ 
 tation is but the expedient of a weak* and somewhat uneducated 
 people. The Parisians (and Parisians settle the affairs of 
 France,) never agitate ; yet they arrange matters in cases of op¬ 
 pression, in a manner so consonant with the principles of justice 
 and the rights of mankind, that the crowned heads of Europe, 
 (and lately our own Sovereign,) have complimented them on 
 their spirited conduct, by visiting and congratulating the object 
 of their free choice ; though only distinguished by having, like his 
 ancestors, established his hereditary claim to the title of a rebel 
 subject. 
 
 Religion is, thanks to Providence, the security for peace in 
 Ireland; and a better one on the part of the people than even the 
 consciousness of present inability to enforce justice. The Irish 
 people perceive that if the contest for a good form of government is 
 to be successful it must be bloodless, and to be valuable at any 
 time it should be so. The advance to the full enjoyment of national 
 rights must be step by step. The coolness and good temper with 
 which the people have carried on their share of the Repeal agi¬ 
 tation have raised them in the estimation of their fellow-subjects 
 in England—whose opposition to Repeal will diminish in the 
 exact proportion that their respect for and confidence in the Irish 
 increase. The Repeal road has many stages ; the first is extension 
 of the franchise; the second, increase of the representative body; 
 and, without losing sight of a Repeal, these are turnpikes at 
 which, on the journey to domestic government, it will be neces¬ 
 sary to take tickets. 
 
 There are many difficulties in the way of a settlement of the 
 church question, but none which will not yield to steady persever¬ 
 ance, and to continued, firm, and temperate appeals to Protestant 
 justice and to Protestant reason. Heartfelt conscientiousness in 
 some; timidity, suspicion, habit, pride, parsimony, and prejudice 
 in others—each influencing a sub-division of Protestants—com¬ 
 bine to prevent any change in the Established Church temporalities: 
 (be it understood that no term of reproach is intended to refer to 
 Protestants as a body) some Protestants think that the dignity of 
 their religion would be impaired unless the Papist not merely 
 recognized but felt the weight of Protestant Ascendancy. The 
 “ Damnable Idolater,” as the Catholic is called, is required not 
 only to bow down and pay homage, but tribute also. Other 
 
 * ** Weak” does not here refer to intellect, but to a deficiency of physical force. 
 
 E 
 
50 
 
 Protestants, long accustomed to command, are too proud to de¬ 
 scend to equality. It is a fact so notorious that Protestants are 
 amply rich enough to support their church without any difficulty, 
 that it is unnecessary to go into a charge of parsimony, save 
 by stating this fact. The amount which they compel Catholics 
 to pay to their church is (not to speak of the pressure) more 
 than enough to make the impost vexatious; but were it only 
 a single pound, the impost is repugnant to the principles of 
 justice, and at variance with the rules of consistency : repugnant 
 to justice because no citizen of a free state should be compelled 
 to contribute either directly or indirectly to the support of a 
 creed from which he derives no benefit, and which declares his 
 to be damable and idolatrous; and at variance with consistency, 
 because the leading dogma of the Protestant religion is the right 
 of private judgment—thus tolerating dissent yet mulcting the 
 Dissenter ; at variance also with consistency, because, according 
 to the Protestant code of ecclesiastical law, there is no limitation 
 against the church, in which case the Catholic Church of the 
 olden time might, on precedent, plead exemption from the statute 
 of limitation, and re-enter whenever Catholics were strong enough. 
 The Protestant population of London is nearly as great as the 
 Protestant population of all Ireland. What would the London 
 Protestant population say if they were asked to pay for the fol¬ 
 lowing church establishment :— 
 
 2 Archbishops, 
 
 22 Bishops, 
 
 33 Deaneries, 
 
 26 Precentorsliips, 
 
 22 Chancellorships, 
 
 22 Treasurerships, 
 
 34 Aredeaconries, 
 
 2 Provostships, 
 
 188 Prebends and Canonries, 
 107 Rural Deans, 
 
 52 Vicars Choral, 
 
 20 Choristers, 
 
 12 Choir Readers and Stipendiaries, 
 
 30 Diocesan Schools, 
 
 175 Officers in Consistorial Courts, 
 749 Benefices, single parishes, 
 
 1781 Parishes compressed into 517 
 Benefices, 
 
 Total of offices enjoyed by the Estab¬ 
 lished Clergy, 3 1 © 5. 
 
 In India, the British government has a hundred millions under 
 its jurisdiction, who may, in fact, be called subjects of England, 
 and about whose idolatry there can be no manner of doubt, and 
 yet she does not tax them for the support of one Protestant par¬ 
 son. Is there not still less excuse for taxing an Irish subject, 
 whom Government not merely says but swears is an idolater ? 
 What possible answer is there to this question but a reference to 
 the Horse Guards ? Is not the course pursued to the Irish (so 
 sworn) idolater, far more harsh than that pursued to the Hindoo ? 
 The British Government have not attempted by penal enact¬ 
 ments, including transportation, fine, imprisonment, nay death,* 
 to suppress their religion; they have respected the Hindoo ido¬ 
 latry ; they have not confiscated Hindoo funds and seized on 
 
 * All this was done to Catholics.—See all unprejudiced histories, and any 
 authentic copy of the Penal Statutes. 
 
51 
 
 Hindoo temples for their own clergy. No, no, this plan of acting 
 is reserved solely for their Irish sister. What provision is made 
 for the spiritual comfort of the many thousand British Protestants 
 in India, scattered over an immense empire—both civilians and 
 soldiery ? For thousands of miles there is not either church or 
 clergyman, a state of things which the writer considers is deplor¬ 
 able. He would wish to see the spiritual wants of his fellow- 
 subjects attended to as far as it was possible; but piety becomes 
 very questionable whenever it trenches on justice. We may not 
 “ do evil that good may result.” There is not a Protestant in the 
 empire who would not protest against a tax being levied on the 
 Hindoos or Mahomedans for the support of a Protestant clergy— 
 and why Protestants uphold the principle that a Catholic feilow- 
 Christian should be compelled to pay a Protestant clergy, is a 
 problem which cannot be solved by the ordinary rules of equity. 
 
 The inferences which the writer desires to draw from these 
 facts are—first, that Protestants who go to India must take care 
 of their own souls ; but, if they go to Ireland, they will be taken 
 care of for them by the government, at the expense of Irish 
 Catholics. Secondly, that a Protestant Government entertains 
 less anxiety about Protestant souls when they are 4,000 miles off 
 than when they are near home; and thirdly, that it is a more 
 pious, praiseworthy undertaking (and clearly a safer one), to bur¬ 
 then and to institute a crusade against seven millions of Papists 
 than to experimentalize on one hundred millions of Pagans. 
 
 The writer has no hesitation in saying that if the Protestants 
 of Ireland were too poor to support a sufficient number of cler¬ 
 gymen, he believes that they would be assisted by all Catholics 
 who were sufficiently affluent,* and most assuredly he would con¬ 
 tribute as far as his means allowed; but no such plea as poverty 
 could be made—for it was asserted by the late Lord Liverpool, 
 and by Doctor Duignan, that nineteen-twentieths of the property 
 of Ireland was in Protestant hands. In treating of this question 
 it is earnestly hoped that no expression has been made use of 
 which could offend any pious Protestant. There is no atonement 
 which the writer would in such a case hesitate to make; as nothing 
 can be farther from his thoughts or wishes. He would never con- 
 
 * The existence of this feeling is illustrated by reference to a recent occur¬ 
 rence. The Rev, Mr. Nevin, a respected Protestant curate, of advanced age, 
 and acting for a long series of years in Dublin, but not adequately remunerated 
 for liis services, was, by a legal decision, rendered unable to enforce the greater 
 portion of his salary—the rate from which he had derived it not being based in 
 law. Whilst a Protestant parishioner was his chief opponent, we find that a Ca¬ 
 tholic parishioner (Mr. Duffy, the publisher of this work,) proposed and was sup¬ 
 ported by all the Catholics present, that the rate should be continued for the 
 maintenance of this clergyman. The resolution was carried, and the Rev. Gentle¬ 
 man is indebted to Catholics (who have taxed themselves)for his moderate income. 
 This is the voluntary principle practically illustrated ; and it is a happiness to 
 record such instances of its value. The majority of men of all creeds was for 
 supporting a worthy Clergyman. 
 
 e 2 
 
52 
 
 ’sent that a single Protestant clergyman now existing should be de¬ 
 prived of one shilling of his income. Any arrangement should pro¬ 
 vide for the present incumbents, bishops, and others for their 
 lives; but as to future appointments, it is an opinion entertained 
 by many of the sincerest friends to Protestantism that, without 
 pressing on Protestants of any class more than they could bear 
 with perfect convenience, an ample and more equal provision could 
 be made for their clergy, without taxing Catholics for that pur¬ 
 pose ; and the religion itself would be more respectable and res¬ 
 pected. Catholics are not above one-twentieth as rich, and they 
 Lave not merely not solicited but peremptorily refused to allow r a 
 Protestant to contribute a single farthing to the support of a 
 Catholic clergyman. The opinions of a Protestant Lord Chan¬ 
 cellor, keeper of the conscience of a Protestant Monarch, are here 
 respectfully submitted to the readers, not with a view of presum¬ 
 ing to suggest, as the noble Lord did, that the Episcopal Bench 
 might be dispensed with—for the writer is not of that opinion— 
 but merely to show the wide difference which exists between Pro¬ 
 testant Christianity, as supported in Scotland, and Protestant 
 Christianity, as maintained in Ireland, a Catholic country : 
 
 “ Strange as it may seem,” says Lord Brougham, in one of his elo¬ 
 quent harangues, “ and to many who hear me incredible, from one end 
 of the kingdom [Scotland] to the other, a traveller will see no such 
 thing as a bishop—not such a thing is to be found from the Tweed to 
 John o’Groats : not a mitre ; no nor so much as a minor canon, or even 
 a rural dean—and in all the land not a single curate—so entirely rude 
 and barbarous are they in Scotland—in such utter darkness do they sit 
 that they support no cathedrals, maintain no pluralists, suffer no non¬ 
 residence ; nay, the poor benighted creatures are ignorant even of tithes! 
 Not a sheaf, or a lamb, or a pig, or the value of a plough-penny, do the 
 hopeless mortals render from year’s end to year’s end! Piteous as their 
 lot is, what makes it infinitely more touching is to witness the return g£ 
 good for evil, in the demeanour of this wretched race. Under all this 
 cruel neglect of their spiritual concerns, they are actually the most loyal, 
 contented, moral, and religious people any where, perhaps, to be found 
 in the world.”— Trial of John Ambrose Williams , for a libel on the 
 j Clergy of Durham , August 1 Qth, 1822, p. 43. 
 
 CHAPTER XIL 
 
 UNRECLAIMED LAND-GOVERNMENT WORKS-REMEDY FOR 
 
 ABSENTEEISM. 
 
 There are nearly three millions* of acres of waste land in Ire¬ 
 land ; of this about three-fourths could be converted to agricul¬ 
 tural purposes by draining, &c. There are tw r o millions three 
 hundred thousand paupers in this country, and about seven hun¬ 
 dred thousand very distressed persons in the working classes, not 
 
 * See reports of Commissioners, in 1809; Nimmo’s Reports, &c. 
 
53 
 
 absolutely paupers : of these three millions, there are about eight 
 hundred thousand men who would think themselves fortunate to 
 obtain wages at the rate of ten pence per day, though having 
 families to support, eight pence being about the average rate 
 of labourers’ wages in Ireland. If to the ten pence a-day to the 
 father of a family, ten pence a-day more were added for the 
 labour of his wife, and child of 12 or 13 years’ old, that peasant 
 would consider himself well off, in Ireland, where whole families 
 in some places subsist on sixpence a-day. Leases for 21 years, 
 at rents varying from Is. to 2s. bd. an acre, would be joyfully given 
 by the proprietors of unreclaimed land to the government; and the 
 government could, as a preliminary, fix a maximum rent to be de¬ 
 manded at the expiration of the term, thus preventing these lands 
 from being over let then. Irish moor-land moderately drained, 
 will, by merely burning the top sod and using it as manure, pro¬ 
 duce good potatoes on the first year of taking it in hands, and on 
 the second, excellent oats. Cutting the drains gives fuel to the 
 cultivators, by drying the turf thrown up, having cut it with a 
 slane (a tool to shape it into masses the size of bricks)* The 
 profit on this land, let for so long a term, at a mere nominal rent 
 of a shilling or two per acre, would be enormous long ere the 21 
 years had elapsed. The employment given would not merely be 
 of use to those occupied in such public works,, but would raise 
 the rate of wages every where without injury to employers of 
 any, particularly of the landlord class; for their rents would be 
 better paid, and their lands would be better cultivated. A 
 crowded population with very small holdings exhaust land ; they 
 never can fallow it, never can have a proper succession of crops. 
 Employment, too, would cause poor-rates to disappear, for the 
 Irish people are not amateur inmates of poor-houses ; every class 
 would be benefited; the revenue would increase in proportion, 
 and what would be a great desideratum to government, political 
 opinions would be advocated with a degree of coolness which 
 could not be called agitation—for a busied population does not agi¬ 
 tate ; it petitions, and what it loses in declamation it gains in 
 weight. If government were once to set on foot public works, 
 companies and private capitalists would soon follow the example, 
 and turn their thoughts to Ireland instead of to the Rouen Rail¬ 
 way, South America, &c. &c. It is idle to raise objections to 
 this plan on the pretext that governments should not become 
 traders and traffickers with the public property. Government 
 would work a silver mine* with it; yes, and take the mine by force, 
 
 *Those who prefer being witty to being wise, who like sarcasm better than 
 argument, and ridicule more than reasoning, will scoff at the idea of Irish moor¬ 
 land being spoken of in the same page with a silver mine. For one man that 
 lost money by reclaiming land, one hundred have been injured by mining. Lay¬ 
 ing out money on a mine is an uncertain speculation, and at most a temporary 
 gain ; expending it on moor-land ensures a certain and permanent return ; the 
 process is simple, labour cheap, and outlay comparatively small. 
 
54 
 
 loo, in the Queen’s name; so that the only question is one of amount 
 of profit; and as there could not by possibility be any loss in this 
 case—nay, a certain gain would result—and as justice, humanity, 
 and good policy are all enlisted in behalf of the proposition, per¬ 
 haps these united facts may be weighed against the superior 
 profit of working a silver mine. There can be no objection 
 raised on the score that governments do not farm and collect 
 rents. The Irish know to their cost that governments do collect 
 rents ; for instance, the quit and crown rents amounting to a large 
 revenue, which they carry off to England^ and governments 
 do farm and graze cattle, as the Commissioners of the Woods and 
 Forests can testify. 
 
 The government could raise 50 millions forpublic works in 
 Ireland (remember the twenty millions sunk on the negroes), and 
 the reduction of part of the useless army, together with the in¬ 
 crease of the revenue, growing out of the increased prosperity of 
 a nation, would more than pay the interest at three per cent. 
 
 The people of England are injured by the language held, and 
 the course pursued by Government towards this country, they 
 are misled in supposing Ireland to be on the verge of rebellion, 
 and they send their capital to other countries, to France,* where 
 with as much truth as wit, a list of amusements for the week, 
 contained the following announcement, <c aujourd ’ huipolichinelle 
 demain fen d' artifice, apres demain — revolution Government 
 partizans allege, that it is the language of Mr. O’Connell, and 
 of a few others, which has kept English capital from Ireland. If 
 these gentlemen even did say that the people were ripe for re¬ 
 bellion, the government ought not to have believed them—for 
 it would have been a gross misstatement; and the Cabinet 
 ought to have known the state of a country under its jurisdic¬ 
 tion better, than to have for a moment credited the report: but 
 they had not that pretext, for Mr. O’Connell did not make such 
 an assertion. In moments of excitement, Mr. O’Connell did not 
 draw a proper distinction between an oligarchy! in England, and 
 her people, but this is an error easily atoned for; it was one 
 of the lip, not of the heart. Had Mr. O’Connell reflected at the 
 moment, his knowledge of human nature would have pointed 
 out the error of confounding a nation with a government. 
 The people of both nations have many thoughts, wants, com¬ 
 plaints, wishes, and feelings in common: between a poor man 
 in England, France, America, and Ireland, there cannot be a 
 very wide difference in opinion—and certainly no instinctive 
 
 * It is to be deplored that this illustrious People, who know so well how to 
 achieve freedom, have never learned the art of preserving it. They forge fetters 
 to day to break them to-morrow. 
 
 t The writer has published several small works, in all of which he entreated 
 politicians to draw a marked line between an oligarchy and a people. 
 
feelings"of mutual distrust or dislike. Mr. O’Connell is a kind- 
 hearted, peace-loving man, and when ever he is sure that the olive 
 branch will be accepted, no man will be more ready to present it 
 to the people of England. In concluding remarks on the neces¬ 
 sity of setting on foot public works, it is essential to observe, 
 that Government would, by means of wise and paternal mea¬ 
 sures, be henceforward regarded as the dispensers of justice, and 
 benefactors to a nation—instead of being known only as vessels 
 of wrath, or lictors with the scourge. 
 
 There have been various measures proposed to remedy the 
 evils attendant on Absenteeism. Some persons, conspicuous in 
 the political world, have suggested a tax on Absentee Proprietors ; 
 this would inflict a wrong on one party without effectually re¬ 
 dressing the grievance of the other. The following proposition 
 is, no doubt, a novel and startling one, but the owner of the pro¬ 
 perty intended to be dealt with would suffer less by it than by any 
 other mode of dealing with an Absentee Proprietor. Instead of 
 being obliged to pay a heavy tax—and to be at all useful, it should 
 be heavy—he would only be required to make a choice between 
 two countries for his permanent residence; receiving the full value 
 for his property in the other. It cannot be denied that there is 
 a great interference with private rights involved in imposing any 
 condition whatsoever on an Absentee Proprietor of land in Ire¬ 
 land ; but desperate cases require desperate remedies—and private 
 property is in many cases interfered with for the public good, 
 where the necessity is not half so urgent, and the advantage to 
 the public infinitely less. Let us suppose the absentee system a 
 general one—would it not be a system, if not of wholesale rob¬ 
 bery, certainly carrying with it the utter ruin of a whole people. 
 If it be then ruinous and unjust in principle when carried out to 
 the extent of forty millions, it is ruinous and unjust when carried 
 out to the extent of four millions in the exact proportion which 
 four bears to forty; and a check should be put to it even at the 
 expense of depriving some gentlemen of indulgence in a taste 
 for variety—loss, there should be none to them. 
 
 If power were given to Government to purchase at the high¬ 
 est rate of value the estates of absentees, there is little doubt that 
 all of them who are men of feeling, and possessed of a strong 
 sense of justice, would avail themselves of an opportunity to serve 
 their fellow-creatures without any loss to themselves. But such 
 is the calamitous condition of Ireland that it justifies extreme 
 measures; and, if the appeal to equity and humanity failed, it 
 might be prudent, in order to close the ruinous absentee drain, to 
 introduce into parliament a bill to render compulsatory the sale of 
 the estates of such absentee proprietors as had also estates in Eng¬ 
 land, and resided there. A Member of Parliament who is returned 
 for two places must make his election ; he will not be allowed to 
 
56 
 
 pretend that he can do justice to both. When Government rewards 
 a military man for long service and risk of life, a piece of land in 
 Canada is given to him; but though this is covered with useless 
 trees which must be got rid of at heavy expense; and though 
 going out, and above all, residing there will put the officer to the 
 greatest inconvenience, still he must go, and must reside. No 
 absenteeism will be tolerated —but to be sure this is to serve our 
 dear colony—our belligerent colony, that took a recipe from 
 her neighbour in the United States,* to cure an internal disease.t 
 
 An act of parliament would get rid of technical difficulties in 
 the title of the estates thus sold, and they could be disposed of in 
 lots of from £25 to £100* annual value. This would create a 
 yeomanry,J a class Ireland stands in need of. By granting 
 perpetuities to purchasers, they would beeome proprietors and 
 employers—not middle-men ; subletting on a large scale would be 
 guarded against, and tillage ensured in a far greater proportion 
 than grazing, which is seldom adopted as a sole pursuit by persons 
 who have small holdings. 
 
 When it is recollected that absentees are generally persons 
 possessing from £10,000 to £100,000 a-year, and upwards, it will 
 not be considered a great hardship that they should be obliged to 
 dispose, at the highest value, of those Irish properties which they 
 scarcely ever see. 
 
 The bill could be so shaped as to affect only those who had 
 properties to a certain large amount in each kingdom. If the 
 principle be once admitted, the whole affair could be arranged 
 with perfect ease, little apposition, and without just cause for 
 any discontent. 
 
 It may be objected that the compulsatory law would be an in¬ 
 vasion of private rights; so was the Slave Bill—so are railroads—so 
 is every improvement in the streets of London. There would be 
 fifty times a greater advantage to the community by selling the 
 estate of an absentee, than by throwing down a man’s house in 
 order to beautify a street in London; and great as is the comfort 
 of shortening time in travelling, there is as much right to sell the 
 estate of an absentee for the public good, as to destroy a man’s 
 garden and lawn, and annihilate his domestic comforts, by run¬ 
 ning a railroad close to his door, in order that people should get 
 to a particular place in fewer hours. If the Government fancy 
 any particular spot for the public service, they will instantly take 
 
 * No nation so gallantly won, so carefully preserved, and (Switzerland ex¬ 
 cepted) so little abused unbounded liberty as America did. 
 
 f When the British Government saw the striking effects of the first dose, they 
 immediately evinced the utmost solicitude for the patient, and placed her under 
 home parliamentary treatment, which was just what she wanted. 
 
 X The Irish readers should be apprised, that yeomanry is the term in Eng¬ 
 land applied to farmers whom in Ireland we should call snug farmers. 
 
57 
 
 it, compelling the owner to give it up* * * § at a valuation. It is a 
 notorious fact that the establishment of the free trade principle 
 beggared and drove out of employment many hundred thousand 
 persons. Who talked of private properties then—or even of the 
 livelihood of whole towns and districts ?—and yet in these cases 
 there was absolute ruin, and no compensation ; and in the absen¬ 
 tees’ case, individuals already enormously rich would be amply 
 repaid, and could concentrate their properties elsewhere. Many 
 absentees are most excellent landlords,! and have highly esteemed 
 gentlemen as agents; but nothing can compensate for non-resi¬ 
 dence on a great scale —and nothing could so much benefit Ireland 
 as the creation of a clas& of small proprietors. The Govern¬ 
 ment should secure to the owner of the property to be sold, a price, 
 after the fullest investigation, declared to be its utmost possible 
 value ; and the Government would in no case lose—for there is a 
 great deal of small detached capital in Ireland, and by selling in 
 small lots to be within reach of that, and by ensuring safe titles, 
 and giving perpetuities, there would be competition at the very 
 highest rate of purchase. But even supposing there were a loss, 
 and that the Imperial Treasury gave more for an estate sold 
 wholesale than it afterwards brought at retail price (a supposition 
 contrary to every commercial principle), still, when a great na¬ 
 tional benefit is to be obtained, a small imperial loss should not 
 be a barrier; time would assuredly bring about remuneration. 
 
 Interference with private rights for public good is a maxim 
 recognized in all ages. Even the price of commodities has been 
 regulated on that principle. From the time of Henry VII. to 
 James I. the statutes and parliamentary history will show that the 
 legislature frequently regulated the affairs of landlord and tenant, 
 and restricted tillage land from being on too extensive a scale 
 converted into pasture. Lord Bacon,! Sir J. Fortescue, and 
 other eminent men in those periods, brought forward motions on 
 these subjects. The 25th of Henry VIII. enacted that farmers 
 should not keep above 2000 sheep, and should not occupy two 
 farms; and this was extending the principle applied by the 4th of 
 Henry VII. to the Isle of Wight. Perhaps it may be useful to 
 give a summary of those acts;§ the object in doing so is merely 
 
 * The writer has some experience in these matters. In his father’s life-time 
 the Government seized on a piece of ground in his demesne, not far from the 
 house, and built on it a martello tower; quartered soldiers in it, cut up the lawn, 
 and damaged the place, and annoyed the proprietor in every possible way—but 
 never gave a penny compensation. The writer himself was compelled to sell an 
 island belonging to him—in order to have a lighthouse erected on it—which he 
 did for its mere value. 
 
 f At the head of the list of actively humane and enlightened landlords is the 
 writer’s valued friend, George Lane Fox, of Bramham Park, Yorkshire, Esq., 
 M.P., who to ancient lineage, princely fortune, and mental endowments, unites 
 that practical benevolence which illustrates Christianity and adorns man. 
 
 X Pari. Hist. vol. iv. p. 414. 
 
 § See Appendix. 
 
58 
 
 to show that the Legislature considered interference with the dis¬ 
 posal and culture of land as a right vested in it, and the exercise 
 of that right an imperative duty. 
 
 The mode here suggested of dealing with absentee estates 
 would largely contribute to prevent some of the evil consequences 
 of the entail principle and the rights of primogeniture—which 
 might more justly be termed, the wrongs of younger children.* 
 
 A statute of Edward I. established the entail principle, in 
 order to create a rich oligarchy, and established it w r ith such rigour 
 that a relaxation became necessary in the reign of Edward 1V., 
 when the previous act was, however, rather eluded than repealed. 
 
 The 4th of Henry VII. took a more extended view, for he 
 was jealous of the nobility, and was of suspicious temper. Break¬ 
 ing entails, levying fines, and suffering recoveries, powers of 
 raising money, &c. &c., were found to be essential to national 
 'prosperity as well as to the ends of abstract justice. The privi¬ 
 lege to alienate estates was first given by Henry VII. to persons 
 who had served in the army. 
 
 Most of the estates in Ireland are heavily mortgaged; and it 
 would not only be prudent to make the sales of absentees’ estates 
 compulsatory, but to frame enactments to facilitate the sale of all 
 estates,! by getting rid of obsolete charges, and by diminishing 
 the price of stamps and regulating at low rates all law charges in 
 these cases. A number of estates would be brought into the market, 
 and would pass into the hands of capitalists, who alone can improve 
 them, instead of being in the hands of needy men or of chancery 
 receivers. The advantage of this to the nation would be incal¬ 
 culable. The tenantry would be greatly benefitted, as the te¬ 
 nantry of distressed landlords generally partake of his distress; 
 and the distressed portion of the proprietary would get a better 
 price and readier sale, and would no longer be acting as many of 
 them are—as the unpaid agents of the most useless class! (speak¬ 
 ing generally) in the community—the mortgagees; who never 
 contribute a fraction to the improvement of the land (their secu¬ 
 rity), or to alleviate the distress of a tenantry from whom they 
 often derive a larger income than the less fortunate landlord. 
 This class is not affected by any fluctuation. The creditors of 
 the nation are subject to fluctuation in interest, but the mortgagee 
 creditor must have his pound of flesh—his six per cent.—and 
 though famine desolated the locality from which it was drawn, 
 the writer can vouch that not one farthing was contributed by a 
 mortgagee proprietary, deriving between thirty and forty thou¬ 
 sand pounds a year from districts in this calamitous situation. 
 Were Ireland under the government of men who would turn their 
 
 * The writer does not speak selfishly—he was the eldest son. 
 
 f The bill of the Right Hon. G. O. Moore, M.P. for Dublin, was very useful 
 on this point, but might now be much improved and extended in its operations. 
 
 $ This observation refers to mortgagees receiving high rate of interest. 
 
whole thoughts to develope, and to help her to develope her re¬ 
 sources, they would find able and willing coadjutors in the capi¬ 
 talists of England; and in a few years the terms Saxon and Celt 
 would be forgotten, The British people would, when they knew 
 Ireland by personal observation, and when the properties of thou¬ 
 sands of them were embarked in business here, join the Irish in a 
 calm representation, that it was for the interest of England and 
 Ireland that each nation should transact its own domestic business ; 
 whilst the happiness and the honour of the empire would be the 
 joint care and cherished object of both. 
 
 CHAPTER XIII. 
 
 GOVERNMENT CHOICE-ADVANCE OR FALL BACK-MARTIAL 
 
 LAW-POPULAR LEADERS-BEWARE- ’82 -FOREIGN FRIEND¬ 
 SHIPS-LIMITED LOYALTY-LOUIS PHILIPPE-LOYALTY per se- 
 
 Two causes, and but two, remain open to Government—they 
 must either recede or advance, they cannot remain stationary, 
 they cannot venture to assert that matters shall or could remain 
 as they now are—that is utterly impossible. There is not an 
 adult in the empire who does not perceive that if they advance 
 on the principle they commenced with, they must advance at the 
 head of the army they have assembled; and their next steps must 
 be martial law, suspension of the Habeas Corpus Act, gagging bills, 
 &c.&c. The line of imprudent march, commencing with proclama¬ 
 tions and prosecutions for conspiracy, has been plainly pointed out; 
 but it is to be hoped that in the ensuing royal speech,* grievances, 
 before said to be ideal, will be spoken of as real, and a pledge then 
 be given to have them inquired into. Thus will Ministers have 
 made a retrograde movement on the sure position where religion, 
 justice, humanity, and prudence will point out the remaining 
 course. How infinitely preferable will this be to rushing on in 
 the wild hope that the people will be intimidated, or forsake their 
 present leaders, and adopt such as government might select for 
 them ! And for whom would the people forsake those tried 
 friends ? Would they select as leaders, in a struggle to obtain 
 redress of grievances, any one man who by his vote in parliament 
 plainly told them that they had no grievances to be redressed ? 
 Would they select Tories, so many of whom are their notorious 
 opponents?—or Whigs, so many of whom are their pseudo friends? 
 Or would they expect to find a male leader amongst those emas¬ 
 culated gentry who call themselves neutrals, and declare that 
 politics are too much for their nerves, tremble at the thought of 
 a public meeting, shrink sensitively from the idea of avowing that 
 they entertain any opinion, and “die of arose in aromatic pain.’* 
 
 * This was written before the Royal Speech was published. 
 
60 
 
 Constitutional Ministers will strengthen their Government at 
 home in preference to propping it up by compliments to foreign 
 powers, who may not always be in the mood to forget the olden 
 time of deadly strife. Livy wisely warned posterity when he 
 said, “ Civitas ea autem in libertate sit posita quse suis stat viri- 
 bus non ex alieno arbitrio pendet.”* 
 
 One friendly, nay just act, would bind Ireland more firmly to 
 Great Britain than a show off of influence with every king in 
 Europe. Idle displays and declarations are seen through by the 
 shallowest politicians. Twelve months of good government would 
 place the integrity of this empire on a surer foundation than a cen¬ 
 tury wasted in complimenting foreigners , some of whom detest 
 England with a mortal aversion, as every man in Europe but an 
 Englishman knows, if he lived in those countries one year. What 
 a combination of ignorance of human nature and of vanity it is for 
 the victrix of a hundred fights by sea and land, to fancy herself 
 beloved by her conquered rival! 
 
 No man should undertake to say exactly how much loyalty 
 the Irish people possess—but there can be no doubt that it was 
 four times the amount of their patriotism, until last year—when 
 the latter marched a couple of steps. In the year 1782, there 
 were strong indications of patriotic feeling amongst some of the 
 aristocracy, but very little evidence of that feeling amongst the 
 people, or we should not be under the necessity of now agitating 
 for a Repeal, as there would have been no parliamentary union. 
 The northern Protestants were, indeed, gloriously active, for the 
 natural reason, that they had the feelings of freemen ; but the 
 Catholics were so debased by slavery, so hopeless of freedom, that 
 they took a comparatively slight interest in the great struggle 
 of 1782. The banner of that period was a libel on civilization 
 and Christianity ; Liberty was on one side of it, and bigotry 
 on the other; a Catholic enlisting under it, would be the slave 
 dancing the fetter-hornpipe. 
 
 With a few exceptions, the Patriots! (so called, of that day) are 
 now egregiously overrated. They strutted about in their fancy 
 uniforms, shouting “ free trade for Ireland,” and then, sotto voce , 
 “Chain up the Papists;” constitutional rights for Hibernia— 
 manacle, and deprive of them, every man who makes the sign of 
 the cross and says Hail Mary. After the shocking specimen 
 Irish parliaments afforded of an Irish aristocracy, one does not 
 know which to admire most—the bold confidence of the people 
 who would now try them again, or the modest diffidence of the 
 aristocracy, lest they should wander— haud passibus cquis —into 
 the paths of their progenitors. 
 
 * That state alone is free which rests on its own strength, and does not de¬ 
 pend on the arbitrary will of another. 
 
 f Most of these gentlemen were opposed to Catholic Emancipation. 
 
61 
 
 There are two classes in Ireland in the present day who state 
 that they have a large stock of loyalty and patriotism. It is to 
 be hoped that both are sincere. They have, however, very dif¬ 
 ferent vrays of showing their sincerity, and they differ as much in 
 constitutional temperament as in mode of action. One party may 
 be very willing to see good measures pursued towards Ireland, 
 but it is too courteous to think of intruding such trifles on the 
 British Government; it is too long accustomed to bend before all 
 governments, and too indolent to make the slightest exertion for 
 the public good. It is very anxious for calm, but totally indif¬ 
 ferent to the mode of procuring it, and to its duration—nay, quite 
 ready to establish a temporary calm at the expense of a battle or 
 two ! This party is very brave, but rather nervous. Brave, yet 
 nervous, is a seeming contradiction. The observation, how T ever, 
 conveys no imputation on courage; no man will question the 
 courage of any class of Irishmen—but all men are nervous who 
 shout for aid before there is any real danger, and draw swords 
 before any antagonist has appeared. 
 
 The second class participates in the wish of the first for good 
 measures, but not in its inertness. It toils to obtain a consum¬ 
 mation of the mutual desire; it values courtesy, but cannot con¬ 
 sent to let ministers, who are only highly paid public servants, 
 continue to sleep and neglect their duty. It is the equal of the 
 first in courage, and its superior in coolness, activity, and pru¬ 
 dence. It is fully as desirous of calm, but wishes to insure its 
 perpetuity, and protests against the suppression of public opinion 
 by force of arms being mistaken for established tranquillity. 
 This party is the people—the other, the aristocracy. 
 
 Now the people would like ease and comfort just as much as 
 the aristocracy (if it were only for the novelty of the thing) ; but 
 they are not selfish, they cannot consent to accept them unless 
 on terms that will ensure their transmission to posterity. When 
 not goaded to desperation the People yield not to any class in 
 love of order and in obedience to law. In point of loyalty they 
 far transcend every other class; they never bask in the sunshine 
 of royalty—never even see it—never participate in one of its 
 favours—yet they have spilled their blood to uphold that system of 
 government; and even, at this moment, they look into futurity 
 and, not knowing whether the next generation might be as pa¬ 
 tient and well-disposed as this is, desire to secure to his Royal 
 Highness the Prince of Wales, as well as to his Royal Parent, a 
 Teign of uninterrupted peace. This can be insured only by now 
 settling the long outstanding account with Ireland; interest and 
 compound interest accumulating much longer will render it im¬ 
 possible for England to pay the debt. It is safer to settle now 
 than to entail the settlement on the Prince of Wales. 
 
 There is a view of the political horizon which, by some unfore- 
 
seen possibility, might be realized during tlie present reign—or 
 perhaps not until the next or some succeeding one. Wisdom 
 thinks for the future as well as the present; cunning only post¬ 
 pones difficulties, never annihilates them. It is by no means 
 impossible that the following serious matters might, at the same 
 time , require the attention of Great Britain. There is a strong 
 republican party in France, and the probability of a long mino¬ 
 rity : in one word, suppose friendly relations with France in¬ 
 terrupted—the boundary question with America is not, it is to be 
 feared, fully arranged; Canada is unsettled; and frozen Russia 
 has more than once evinced a desire to thaw in the sultry em¬ 
 brace of India It would savour of menace, and be an ungracious 
 way of putting the case, to say “ if Ireland were then to decide 
 on separation.” But suppose, on the contrary, that Irish loy¬ 
 alty is provocation-proof, and beyond the influence of any griev¬ 
 ance, will that secure Great Britain from foreign aggression f 
 Certainly not. The foreigner will judge by the facts that the 
 British Government has declared sedition to be spread throughout 
 Ireland, and has sent forty thousand soldiers to check it. The 
 foreigner will argue that England dare not remove these troops: 
 the foreigner will, in every negociation, hold out for conditions 
 injurious to the honour and to the interests of Great Britain. 
 War would be the certain result of this; and though it is to be 
 hoped that the foreigner would soon perceive his error in supposing 
 Ireland revengeful, yet England, involved in war, would too late 
 discover the destructive policy of having governed half an em¬ 
 pire in such a manner that Europe and America could assume, 
 either that they would find allies there, or, that if loyalty did 
 exist, it was an abstracted, isolated principle—unsustained by af¬ 
 fection and unstrengthened by any community of interest! It 
 casts no stigma on Ireland’s loyalty to desire to see it fortified by 
 such feelings. 
 
 The King of the French is shrewd—the French themselves 
 quick-sighted. It cannot be supposed that they have not seen 
 through every step taken in this Empire during the past year, and 
 have not drawn the just inference from each. Here is an open, 
 and here is the power, currente calamo , to say many too true and bit¬ 
 ter things. It is impossible to take a review of the events of the past 
 year without appearing to be drawing up an indictment against the 
 Government. Simple comments become sarcasms, and truisms 
 severity; but the writer’s object is to reason, not offend—to expos¬ 
 tulate, not menace—to speak of the future, and, if possible, forget 
 the past—to allay, not to irritate—to lend his humble but zealous 
 co-operation to unite and bind together—not sunder the hearts 
 of fellow-subjects in both kingdoms. 
 
 British Ministers owe a debt of retributive justice to their So¬ 
 vereign as well as to Ireland. They have, by a series of impo¬ 
 litic acts, proclaimed to Europe that they consider the British 
 
63 
 
 Empire has been for some time and is insecure, and that a large 
 army must be maintained in it. Ireland arraigns them for mis¬ 
 representation both with reference to the past and to the present; 
 but she cannot prevent them from labouring to fulfil their own 
 predictions as to the future. 
 
 CHAPTER XIV. 
 
 REAL UNION-IRISH CONNEXIONS WITH ENGLAND-ARISTO¬ 
 CRACY VERSUS SEVEN MILLIONS-FRANKNESS-TREACHERY— 
 
 THERE IS YET TIME, BUT NONE TO SPARE. 
 
 A considerable number of Irishmen can, with great truth 
 say— c< England, with all thy faults, we love thee still.”* Faults 
 in governing, are the faults of an oligarchy—not of a whole 
 people. Both nations should recollect the countless intermar¬ 
 riages which have taken place, the hundreds of thousands who 
 have exchanged countries, Englishmen settling here, Irishmen 
 in England. Were a civil war to take place—were English sol¬ 
 diers to discharge a volley in any of the streets of the great 
 towns of Ireland, they would probably draw their own English 
 blood, and were Irish guns to play on any city in England, each 
 volley there would strike an Irishman to the ground. Why not 
 recognize these ties of kindred, why not extend them into a na¬ 
 tional alliance, and affix the seal of justice to the bond of peace ? 
 
 Had his Majesty of France affected ignorance, and enquired 
 of the ministers who paid him a complimentary visit, “ was the 
 British Empire in a tranquil and happy state ?” What would 
 have been their reply ? Had he asked them, “ what sort of a 
 country Ireland was,” how would they have answered, who never 
 saw the second nation in the empire they ruled? It is fair, 
 for the sake of argument, to profess to credit the assertion of 
 ministers, and to suppose a disaffection—the existence of which 
 has been disputed by all popular leaders. It is fair too, on the 
 part of alarmed loyalists, to adopt the ministerial assumption, but 
 not to stop there. If ministers have a right to wander into the 
 regions of conjecture, others may follow ; fancy is all fools’ para¬ 
 dise ; so, having fancied Ireland seditious—and being quite sure 
 she is discontented—the writer will proceed with the vision of the 
 minister. All men who know France, know that the republican 
 party is very powerful there, that the king is very old, the heir a 
 child, the minority likely to be long, and the French “ tant soil 
 peu volage.” Let a change come over the spirit of our dream, 
 
 * The writer, once the representative in parliament of nearly 40,000 English¬ 
 men, with sincere gratitude to them, desires to be enrolled in this class. 
 
64 
 
 and France be again a Republic: we will then wing our way to 
 the land of liberty, to brave, generous, but touchy America, and 
 fancy her ruffled on the boundary question. Canada echoing her 
 neighbour’s growl, Russia picking German quarrels with all inter¬ 
 mediate states, and creeping on from Circassia towards British 
 India, the malcontents in England carrying their demands be¬ 
 yond their present just limits. For the sake of argument, let 
 ministers be supposed to continue to indulge in the erroneous 
 opinion, that Ireland is not forgiving, is not warm of heart, 
 had abandoned those sentiments of loyalty to the crown of Great 
 Britain, which she spilled her best blood, and ruined the properties 
 of her bravest and noblest sons to uphold. Let ministers ima¬ 
 gine the former probabilities and the latter possibilities all come 
 to pass—these visions all embodied, and then ask themselves would 
 they not wish some things undone that they have been doing, and 
 that others which they did not do, had been done; if so , is it too 
 much to call on them to act now precisely as they would then act , and 
 toish they had acted ? Ireland can expect, can desire no more than 
 this. 
 
 Rulers of this empire, away with the wily maxim, “ Divide 
 -and Command,” adopt the sound principle that 6i Union is 
 Strengthdo not pit a scanty Aristocracy against a nation, and 
 a small section of sectarian worshippers of the God of Peace, 
 against seven millions of their fellow-Christians ; try the effect of 
 wholesale, not paltry retail justice; some amongst you have bold, 
 and it is to be hoped upright minds, dare then to be ju§t, 
 and resign the interested support and applause of a party for the 
 attachment of a kingdom and the respect of Europe ; evince more 
 confidence in the people of Ireland than in the contents of your 
 arsenal at Woolwich; unfurl the white, not the blood-red flag; 
 raise the olive branch, and sheathe your sabres.— Carpe diem —it 
 is not yet too late—be above the littleness of fearing to be re¬ 
 proached with having done justice <£ under duresse —by compul¬ 
 sion” ( those are the words of your own Press) ; blush rather for 
 the long line of your predecessors who have delayed justice until 
 it became retributive and assumed the garb of expediency ; do not 
 continue to teach the Irish people to believe that you expect re¬ 
 bellion, for, as they have in the most explicit terms, written and 
 verbal, delared their wish for peace, it looks like a consciousness 
 of great culpability on your part as to the past, or of an intention 
 of future wrong, to make formal preparations to meet an un¬ 
 threatened aggression. Ireland’s patience is not yet quite exhausted. 
 Whatever danger there may be in continuing to trifle with it, up 
 to this hour it endures; opposing unshaken loyalty to a deep sense 
 of oppression, and gratitude for instances of sympathetic bene¬ 
 volence (when famine appeared in Ireland), to the dangerous in¬ 
 fluence of present provocation. 
 
65 
 
 Ministers, the people of Ireland are too just to lay at your 
 door the faults of any of your predecessors; and if you have the 
 moral courage to administer justice in 1844 with the magnanimity 
 you did in 18*29, you will find that the electric spark of sisterly 
 affection towards your country is not extinct in Ireland. But be 
 assured that your frigates, your steamers, and artillery are non¬ 
 conductors . 
 
 It is in your power to rescue the character of two noble nations 
 from the scorn of the civilized world. On Ireland rests the infamy 
 of having fraudulently sold her Constitution—on England, the 
 disgrace of having surreptitiously purchased it. By one great 
 act let both kingdoms obliterate the double stain, and sink into 
 eternal oblivion all recollection of mutual depravity. 
 
 The choice of good and evil is yet before you, and no threat 
 of the inevitable penalty on perseverance in error shall fall from 
 the pen of a friend to peace; so far from using the language of 
 menace, it is grateful to the best feelings of every Irishman to 
 deny, on part of his countrymen, all idea of present violence or 
 future treachery. Their acts will ever be open, temperate, manly, 
 and cool. Rulers of the empire, act with justice to them, and you 
 shall not have to say, incedimus per ignes suppositos cinere doloso. 
 All that Repealers do will be done openly; they will not, by 
 dissolving their present union until justice has been administered 
 to Ireland, lead you to believe that the people will be satisfied with 
 anything short of it. Seven millions of human beings forbid the 
 demand for more—or the acceptance of less. 
 
 Incedimus per r ignes suppositos cinere doloso. 
 Wc walk on fires hidden by deceitful ashes. 
 
 THE END. 
 
Allusion has been made in this pamphlet to the Reform Bill. The 
 writer takes leave to state that he has always upheld the necessity of ex¬ 
 tensive reforms—and many of the Tory party (and to that section of it 
 the writer belonged) were favourable to reforms. 
 
 In 1829 he was requested by his respected friend, the present Duke 
 of Marlborough (then Marquis of Blandford), to second his Grace’s 
 motion for a measure to prevent the sale of seats in Parliament. The 
 Duke’s speech was most able; and the writer, with justifiable pride, 
 refers to his having been selected by such a man to second such a 
 motion. In seconding it, he had the honour of addressing the House at 
 considerable length ; and. being one of the tellers, can state who did and 
 who did not vote when the division took place. Lord John Russell did 
 not vote; Sir J. C. Hobhouse, with an inconsistency not rare in his 
 political life, spoke one way and voted the other ; Lord Brougham sup¬ 
 ported the motion with his usual talent ; many of the leading Whigs 
 absented themselves ; Sir R. Peel met the motion by the direct nega¬ 
 tive, though it merely affirmed a fact, namely, that seats were bought 
 and sold, and that such a practice was unconstitutional and ought to be 
 prevented. 
 
APPENDIX 
 
 The most remarkable statute relative to husbandry was enacted under 
 the reign of Henry the Seventh, obliging the owner of every house, 
 that then was, or within three years last past had been, or hereafter 
 should be, let to farm with twenty acres of land or more lying in tillage, 
 to keep and maintain houses and buildings on the said lands necessary 
 for maintaining the said tillage, under a penalty, that the King or lord 
 of the fee should yearly receive a moiety of the profits of the lands, 
 wherever the houses or buildings were not so maintained.* In the fol¬ 
 lowing reign it was ordained, that whosoever should convert tillage lands 
 into pasture, should forfeit a moiety of the profits of the lands to the lord 
 of the fee; and, if he neglected to receive it within one year, it should 
 become the property of the crown till converted into tillage again.f In 
 the time of Edward the Sixth it was enjoined, with some exceptions, that 
 so much land should be put to tillage as was at any time in tillage, and 
 so kept for four years, from the first of Henry the Eighth, under the 
 penalty of forfeiting five shillings an acre-t Under the reign of Philip 
 and Mary the act of Henry the Seventh was confirmed, and commissioners 
 were appointed to inquire what defaults or offences had been committed 
 against it since the twentieth of Henry the Eighth.§ In the next reign 
 the foregoing statutes of Edward the Sixth and Philip and Mary were 
 repealed; and the statutes of Henry the Seventh and Eighth were re¬ 
 vived, under the penalty of forfeiting ten shillings for every acre con¬ 
 verted from tillage into pasture.|| Afterwards it was ordained that 
 lands in tillage should not be converted into pasture, and that all such 
 lands as had been converted into pasture since the first of Elizabeth 
 should be again converted into tillage.1T 
 
 The statute of Henry the Seventh, which laid the foundation of the 
 others, deserves particular notice, as affording an instance of the inter¬ 
 ference of the Legislature in directing the management of lands, and at 
 the same time serving to show how useful all regulations of this kind are 
 found upon trial. It was commended by almost every distinguished 
 statesman during the reigns of the Tudor family ; and, from the care 
 taken to revive or improve it by the parliaments for about a century, it 
 should seem as if its utility had been generally acknowledged. Sir 
 Thomas More, in his “ Utopia,” hints at the usefulness of a law of this 
 kind; and Lord Bacon took every occasion to recommend it in the 
 House of Commons and in his writings. In the year 1597, distinguished 
 for the high price of grain, “ Mr. Francis Bacon stood up, and made a 
 motion in the House of Commons against inclosures, and depopulation 
 of towns and houses, of husbandry and tillage. For inclosure of grounds 
 brings depopulation—which brings first, idleness; secondly, decay of 
 tillage ; thirdly, subversion of houses, and decay of charity and charges 
 to the poor; fourthly, impoverishing the state of the realm.” His 
 
 * 4 H. VII. c. 19. 
 
 f 6 H. VIII. c. 5 ; 7 H. VIII. c. 1 ; 
 
 27 H. VIII. c. 22. 
 
 t 5 & 6 Ed. VI. c. 5. 
 
 § 2 & 3 Ph. and M. c. 2 
 || 5 Eliz. c. 2. 
 f 39 Eliz. c. 1, 2. 
 
68 
 
 speech was seconded by Sir John Fortescue, Chancellor of the Exche¬ 
 quer, who gave his opinion much in the same way with Mr. Bacon.* 
 Lord Bacon afterwards, in his “ Life of Henry the Seventh,” expa¬ 
 tiates upon this statute, and tells us, “ that it was of singular policy, for 
 the population apparently ; and, if it be thoroughly considered, for the 
 soldiery and military forces of the realm.” 
 
 Inclosures at that time began to be more frequent, whereby arable 
 land, which could not be manured without families, was turned into 
 pasture, which was easily rid by a few herdsmen; and tenancies for 
 years, lives, and at will, whereupon much of the yeomanry lived, were 
 turned into demesnes. This bred a decay of people, and, by conse¬ 
 quence, a decay of towns, churches, tithes, and the like. The King, like¬ 
 wise, knew full well, and in no wise forgot, that there ensued withal upon 
 this a decay and diminution of subsidy and taxes; for the more gentle¬ 
 men—ever lower the book of subsidies. The ordinance was, that all 
 houses of husbandry, that were used with twenty acres of ground and 
 upwards, should be maintained and kept up for ever, together with a 
 competent proportion of land to be used and occupied with them, and in 
 no wise to be severed from them, as by another statute made afterwards 
 in his successor’s time was more fully declared. By this means the 
 houses being kept up, did, of necessity, enforce a dweller ; and the pro¬ 
 portion of land being kept up, did, of necessity, enforce that dweller not 
 to be a beggar or cottager, but a man of some substance, that might 
 keep hinds and servants, and set the plough on going.f 
 
 From the time of enacting this statute to the reign of James the 
 First, every scarcity of grain was usually imputed by the commonalty to 
 the neglect of enforcing it; and its revival was always considered as the 
 most effectual means of restoring plenty. And though the landowners 
 had sometimes interest enough in the parliament to have bills of this 
 kind rejected, yet this act was so popular, or thought to be so beneficial 
 or necessary, that they were frequently obliged to submit to its revival.^ 
 And there is no doubt but it was agreeable to the petty farmers and 
 labourers in husbandry, as it promised to supply them with employment 
 and a maintenance. The greatest part of the landowners considered it in 
 another light, as was evident from the care they took to elujle or defeat 
 it; though enforced and improved by succeeding parliaments, it appears 
 to have been thought inconsistent w ith their interest.§ 
 
 [ * Pari. Hist. vol. iv. p. 414. 
 t Bacon’s “ Life of Henry the Seventh,” p. 596. 
 
 | Pari. Hist, vol. iii. p. 247. 
 
 § Landed proprietors found that tillage did not pay [so well as stock, wool, 
 butter, cheese, &c. 
 
A