them; that it would not be given to every set | to give Ireland such blessings, and such boons, of men; and that most certainly the Parlia- they would not resort to natural law, and ment would not consent to destroy that pailadium, the trial by jury, and to infuse sectarianism into the jury box, and make each jury act upon the feelings of Catholicism and Protestantism in opposition to each other. Before they consented to any such things, the Parliament must be told more than they had by the Government, or else they would permit another severe experiment to be tried upon that interesting, but ill-fated country. The great question had been discreetly narrowed to one of party attack, in which more than one-half of the time of the House had been already wasted. The House had nothing to do with the merits or demerits of the persons mentioned; but as respected the measures which they proposed. If these honourable gentlemen were in any way connected with Ireland, they would not on that account further the claims of that country to redress; nor was the redress of her evils the less incumbent on Parliament on that account. These evils had long ago been pressed on the attention of the House. Mr. Emmett and Mr. M'Nevin stated in 1793, what were the grievances of Ireland. Would the measures now contemplated by the Ministers be effective, if not accompanied by the remedies which they suggested? When Emmett was examined before the Privy Council, he was asked whether Catholic emancipation and reform were the objects of the common people? He replied, that Catholic emancipation was not, and that reform had not been, till they thought that by it they could get a removal of their grievances." And what are the grievances which they wish to be removed?" was the question. "In the first place, and principally, they complain of the tithes." (Hear). In the next, they complained of the system by which they were governed, and Mr. Emmett said, that if that were altered, they would be more respected by their superiors, and their superiors more esteemed by them. Lord Dillon asked whether they wanted more; he was told they did not. Lord Glentworth said, "Then you wish to destroy the church?" Pardon me, my Lord, not to destroy the church, but to overturn the establishment." (A laugh). "I suppose you would have it as in France.' "No, as in America." (Hear, hear). These quotations, from the manner in which they were received, seemed to be considered favourable to the other side. If so, he hoped they would be instructive. They showed what were the opinions of men who, in that day, were prepared to make, and did make sacrifices for their accomplishment. He complained that the Government did not now state what were the legislative measures they meant to introduce. He hoped they would be such as would meet the expectations and desires of the Irish people. (Hear). If so, were they to be told that the only way to prepare men for these benefits, was to place them in bondage, and to make them slaves? If the Government meant honestly; if they intended

employ force, but would endeavour to calm excitement, and soothe the feelings of the people. Could it be said, that a man might commit murder in Ireland, and escape the punishment awarded by the laws with impunity? (Hear). Were the criminal laws of the two countries different; was there one law for this country, and another for Ireland? And yet they were told that seventy criminals in that country bad evaded the laws; and that those who wished to have the laws executed, were surrounded by the friends and partisans of those criminals, and prevented from causing the laws to be executed. This he believed to be a mere invention; for he never heard such a case substantiated. He was old enough to remember when a noble lord came down to that House, and demanded from it the extraordinary powers which were now about to he required; but then, as now, no proofs were adduced that such strong powers were requisite. The truth was, that the present Government could bring forward no evidence to show that crime had increased in Ireland to the extent they wished the public to believe. But let it be granted that crime had so increased; whence did it spring, and who were the real, original cause of the misrule so loudly com plained of? Why, the present Government; who never by their acts showed that they were inclined to favour that unhappy country. In the very document they had put into the King's mouth, they had shown their disinclination; for, instead of distinctly explaining the measures they meant to adopt towards the amelioration of that country, they had put forth their most eloquent champions to blazon abroad that nothing but a repeal of the union could satisfy the dissatisfied Irish. It would have been much more politic if they had recollected the words of the right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire, as expressed in the year 1808, when he said, in reference to Ireland, that if a greater spirit of conciliation was infused into the English Government; if they were guided by justice and economy, they might easily enlist in their favour the feelings of the Irish people, without having recourse to force and coercion. The policy of the present Government, of which the right hon. Gentleman was so distinguished a member, was not at all framed after such sage advice, for it thought that the best way of calming the complaints of the Irish would be to place them beyond the pale of the laws. The speech from the throne seemed to have been so framed as if the feelings of no one were consulted, and as if its framers cared not whether they insulted the feelings of a whole nation. (Hear, hear). What folly, particularly at a time when the whole of England was upon the stretch to learn what was to be done by a reformed Parliament. (Hear). From that Parliament the nation did not expect vague praises and indefinite plans of measures in perspective; but it expected and cried for useful and instauta

neous concessions. Unless those concessions leave her to herself? You are monstrous loath were prominent, well defined, and likely to be to part with her. (Hear, hear). However, accomplished, the people would abandon all the hon. Gentleman has fallen into a great hope in the administration based upon reform. error. He has followed the steps of the hon. The people required that the finances of the Member for Knaresborough ; but, besides country should be looked to, and dealt largely this, he comes to us piping hot from the lecwith, so far as regarded their diminution. tures of Sir H. Parnell. The schoolmaster is Taxes should be reduced some millions, and a abroad-abroad he is indeed; but now, it property tax should be substituted, so gradu- seems, he is at home, and has been the tutor ated that it should reach large possessors of the hon. Gentleman on the floor. There unsparingly, and touch small proprietors with never was a falser doctrine in the world than a tender hand. When this was done, not only that held up to us by the hon. Member. He this country would be satisfied, but it would assumes, that, because Ireland has exported not be necessary to declare actual war against more since the union than before it, that Ireland, and it would be giving a testimony therefore in that same proportion Ireland that Min. ters were really possessed of a spirit is more prosperous than before the union; and of reform. With respect to that part of the the right hon. Secretary, taking the argument speech which attempted to unfold the reforms from the hon. Member for Knaresborough, of the church contemplated, he would say, that availed himself of all the advantage that could if the same Church reform only was extended be derived from it, and the well-stationed to England which was promised to Ireland; and well-disciplined battalion behind him the English people would not accept it at all echoed and cheered what he said. What is the Let both countries be equally dealt with, and fact, then? I lament to say that the hon. let a candid statement be made of the value of Member-(Mr. Cobbett here turned round the entire church property, and after which and said inquiringly, "He is not here")let a Christian-like distribution take place, and the surplus be applied to the benefit of the nation. If Ministers thought that dividing two millions of money among a number of lesser plunderers would satisfy the nation, they laboured under a great and dangerous delusion. This he said with confidence, for he spoke from an intimate knowledge of the feelings of the people. He would not trouble the House by entering further into the question; but begged to state, that when he entered his protest against the address, and supported the amendment, he did not do so because he wished for a repeal of the union between this country and Ireland. Yet, if he were an Irishman, and saw that a larger portion of happiness would accrue to his country by such a separation, he would not be deserving the name of patriot if he did not contend for it. However, if ever such a separation took place, it would be laid to the account of the existing Government; and whoever hereafter wrote the history of the two countries would say that such a circumstance was caused by the uncalled-for oppression exercised by the Government of this country over Ireland. (Hear, hear).

Thursday, 7. Feb.

Mr. COBBETT and two other members rose at the same time. There was a call for Mr. Cobbett, and the others gave way. The hon. Member spoke to the following effect. If the doctrine of the hon. Gentleman who has last spoken be good, then there is no remedy at all for Ireland; and it would be as well to say at once that a military dictation should take place, and Ireland be ruled in that manuer. Why, however, in that case, such a fuss about parting with Ireland? If it be good for nothing, why not let it go? If she be the poor and worthless thing that the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Tancred) has described her, why not

lament to say that my hon. Colleague is not here. He has documents to lay before the House, for the truth of which he is responsi ble, the truth of which no man can doubt, and which will show, that, in exactly the same proportion that the trade of Manchester increased, in the same proportion have the profits of the manufacturers, the wages of the labourer, and the comforts of the labourer decreased; and which will prove, that in these times of great prosperity, of which the hon. Member for Leeds has spoken—(“ No”)— there are at least ten thousand persons in | Leeds not getting so much as 3d. a day.

Mr. MACAULAY-I never said one word about prosperity. (Hear, hear, oh.)

Mr. COBBETT-The hon. Member said that he had the honour of being the representative of a very prosperous community. He is the representative of Leeds; and was not that saying that that town was in a state of "great prosperity ?" (Here Mr. Macaulay assented). Now, I will pledge myself to prove that there are 10,000 persons in that town who do not get 3d. a day. My hon. colleague will bring the proofs which he has himself collected, and he will prove, that, at the peace, when there was a tolerable degree of prosperity, and the labouring people were doing pretty well, the importation of cotton a third of what it is now, the importation of cotton into Lancashire, or, may be, Manchester (no matter for the argument) was then 6,000 bags a week. Then the people were well off. When it came to 11,000 bags, which is nearly double, profits fell to oue half, and wages fell also; and when it became 20,000 per week, as it is now, he will bring you an account of 50,000 persons and in full work-of 50,000 persons in one district which he personally examined, he himself being a great manufacturer-will bring you an account, which he could verify on oath, of 50,000 persons in that district living on less

motion now before the House seems to have been forgotten.

should not be too confident in what he says, nor too hasty in pledging himself to anything. There is danger in it. A man should not say, "This is right, and that is right, and I will stand by it;" I remember what once fell from the right hon. Secretary, for I admired it for the manner, but not for the matter. I dissented from the matter, and I said so at the time, and I am afraid he has not forgiven me for it from that day to this. The hon. Member for Middlesex, then member for Aberdeen, made a proposition for curtailing the church incomes in Ireland. The right hon. Secretary for Ireland, and a great authority, the present Lord Chancellor for Ireland, both laid it down as indubitable law, that Parliament had no more right to deal with the property of the church than with the property of any private individual. I appeal to the parliamentary report upon this point; they will bear me out, and I speak in the presence of 300 or 400 gentlemen who must recollect that what I say is true. Yet the right hon. Secretary for Ireland, who made that declaration, who was so positive upon the subject, has before brought in a bill or two, and has now told us he has taken credit for his intention, and has called upon us to arm him with powers for the purpose, that he means to bring in hills that will actually shake the church all to pieces. He has found out, therefore, that Parliament has a right to deal with the property of the church

than 24d. a day, and they in full work at the same time. (Hear, hear). So that the hon. Member must not draw conclusions hastily, We have talked about it, and about it, that because trade has increased, happiness "Till e'en the believers seem to doubt it. has increased also. He should not draw (A laugh), conclusions of that sort; for if he do not I remember something that was said by the remember the fact I do, that there was a time hon. Secretary for Ireland that pleased me when the minister of the parish, attended by exceedingly. He has given a criterion of the the churchwardens and overseers, and (to right of resistance-a criterion that I shall exstimulate our charity), came with the tax-amine by-and-by-and it shows that a man gatherer at their back, and my answer was, that I had no charity for Irish landlords (hear, hear), for I knew that they would get it after all. (Hear). That was a time when there were 22,000 tons of oats brought from Galway, lying in the Thames (to be eaten by the horses of absentees), while from that same Galway we had an account of men dying from starvation. Well, then, these notions of the hon. Member are fallacious; they will not do. It must be humiliating for him to find himself so much mistaken; but it must be still more humiliating after his opinions have been cheered with such exultation. "Aye, aye," said the right hon. Secretary, "there's proof of the false charges against the union; he is a practical gentleman; he knows and understands what he says;" and in that way the thing went on most triumphantly for the time. Another error of the hon. Member for Knaresborough, which, if he had been attended to (but his moving from one part of the floor to the other prevented that), I should not have to answer, for the hon. Gentieman completely answered himself. That is a satisfactory way of arguing (a laugh); rubbing out as you go. (A laugh). He said that the real remedy was not the repeal of the union. I have not said one word upon the repeal of the union, for I do not know much about it at present, and it is a rule with me not to talk about a matter till I have had time to consider it, and till think I understand it. (Hear). The hon. Member said the repeal of the union was not the remedy, but that the introduction of poorlaws was(Mr. Richards answered "One") -well, one of the remedies. Now, in the opening of the hon. Member's speech, was a complaint that the Ministers had not mentioned the distressed state of the working people of this country. He referred to the noble Lord who moved the address, and he said that the hon. Member for Dublin had been accused of the crime of commission, and that he accused Ministers of the crime of omission,-a monstrous omission, that they did not state the distress existing in England, forgetting all the while that there were poor-laws iu England! He forgot this while he was calling for this remedy for the sufferings of Ireland! The motives of the hon. member for Knaresborough, were, I am to presume, very good; but he had not thought enough about the matter; he was swimming upon the surface of the subject; and at his and my age, we ought to take a dip into the stream of knowledge. We have had this subject discussed so often, that the real

that it is public and not private property. I do not charge him with anything wrong in this change of opinion: I only state the fact that he has found out that church property is public property altogether. An hon. Gentleman on the back bench, I do not know for what place he sits, seems not to know how to distinguish between the two-it was private property, and yet it was public property; it was necessary, he said, to touch it, and yet to touch it would be spoliation; and the hon. Member for Middlesex said much about the same thing. I do not call taking that which I have a right to take, spoliation, and the question is-has Parliament a right to deal with church property as it pleases, or has it not? It did once, I know, deal with the whole of it; it took it from one set of men to give it to another set; it took away Tavistock and Woburn-Abbey to give them to the Duke of Bedford; and, if it could do that, cau it not now take away parochial and dean and chapter property, which stands upon a foundation very different from that of Woburn? I speak o church property generally. It is quite clea that there is no spoliation in the case. Some

contend that it is not spoliation if you only to have a criterion or standard of the right of go to a certain extent; but what is that length, resistance It has been given to us, and I and where are we to begin, and where to end? thank him for it, by the Secretary for Ireland. The hon. Baronet, the Member for Oxford, I read Blackstone with great attention, to see was quite right for his purpose, in saying that | how far we might safely go, and I went over Parliament had no right to meddle with it at Locke and Coke, and some others, and even all, and that it was spoliation; but on this back to Fortescue, for the same purpose. point, although on no other, I am able to Blackstone leaves the matter doubtful; but cope with the hon. Baronet, and I insist, and the Secretary for Ireland has cleared up the will prove, that it is the nation's property doubt; he has afforded us a certain standard that we have a right to do with it as we like of the right of resistance, and as if his author-and that we are bound to do with it as may ity were not sufficient, we have the high conbe best for those we represent. A great deal firmation of the hon. Member for Leeds (Mr. depends upon the term spoliation. Stigmatize Macaulay), as well as that of the noble Memit with the name of spoliation, and you gain ber for Devonshire. They have told us that much; but I defy the most impudent of man- if any state of things arise here, similar to that kind to bring forward anything more impu- in America in the year 1776, then we have a dent in his whole career than to say this-do right to resist, and not before. (Cheers). Let what you will with it-make it what you will, us see how this applies to the case of Ireland. public or private, clerical or unclerical, but I hope it is not treason yet-(Cheers and we will leave it all still in the families that laughter)-although the Secretary for Ireland, have got possession of it. Gentlemen should, or the Member for Leeds, called the Amerihowever, be told a tale they perhaps were can a holy cause. They said that the never told before (for we come here to speak Americans resisted, and that they had a right in plain terms, not to lard one another with to resist, and they almost added that they flattery, whether high or low); that nothing rejoiced in the resistance and in its sucis clearer than that church property is public cess. I never went so far as that. (Cheers property, and nothing is clearer than that and laughter). I have been called Republican, it is unjustly possessed by the aristo- Radical, Jacobin, Leveller. In the regular. cracy of the kingdom. Not above forty way of promotion I have gone through every families hold all the church property stage-(laughter)-but never in my life did of Ireland; and I ask whether it is any man hear me praise Washington for that the interest of the gentlemen of England act of rebellion against his King. (Cheers). to have their estates mulcted to the extent of I would not have done it, and least of all if 【 two millions sterling, according to the calcu- had been the servant of the son of that King. lation of the Member for Middlesex, to main- (Hear). But to return- the Secretary asserted tain an army of soldiers to compel the pay- that the Americans had a right to resist; let ment of tithes to forty families? Does reli- us see then what it was they resisted. The gion demand it? Does the religion of Jesus Secretary was mistaken; he thought the AmeChrist demand it? No-it does not. I am, ricans demanded to be represented in the and always have been for what some may call British House of Commons. They knew a complete spoliation. In 1829, the Member great deal bet er. (Cheers). They never defor Surrey presented a petition from me, manded any such thing; they never would praying that that which cught to be done have listened to any such proposition. They might be done. If gentlemen have sufficient demanded their own legislature, and the acculeisure, I advise them to read that petition-sation against the Sovereign was, that he had and many a time have they turned with haughty disdain from that to which they have been compelled to listen at last-it was presented in May, 1829, and all the while the Catholic Relief Bill was passing I was exert ing myself, as far as my humble means would allow, to ensure its success; but at the same time I was exhorting the right hon. Baronet not to do the thing by halves, but at once to put down the Protestant hierarchy in Ireland. I told him that there never would otherwise be peace for Ireland, and that the same scones would be repeated after as had occurred before emancipation. I insisted that there must be an end put to the hierarchy in some way or other, and that until an end was put to it, peace there never could be in that distracted, indignant, and justly indignant country. (Cheers). I now come to the pleasing part of my task. In these troublesome times, when some refuse to pay taxes, and others talk of resisting this and that, it is extremely desirable

attempted to interfere with the proceedings of their own legislature. Now, gentlemen of Ireland, let me have a word with you. I do not tell you to rebel, although the Secretary for Ireland praised rebellion, and said that it was lawful. I beseech you not to rebel. (Cheers, and cries of "Order"). Why am I called to order? Is it disorderly in these times, to beseech the people of Ireland not to rebel? Enough has been done, perhaps, to cause rebellion; but I entreat them never to rebelnever to suffer the devil to tempt them to think about rebellion, until they find some grievances like those the Americaus complained of. How do I know what they complained of? Here is their declaration of independence: here is cause shown for their rebellion, and that cause has been declared by the Secretary sufficient. It was written by Jefferson and Maddison together, and it was signed by' them, by Washington, and the rest. (Cries. of " No, no")..

Mr. STANLEY-Washington did not sign it. repeat, out of respect to his present Majesty Mr. COBBETT-Well, that is a matter of no and his family; and that they wind up all importance. (Laughter). It is a wonderful their grounds of resistance by saying, that he error, which, I suppose, is to invalidate all I had even endeavoured to deprive them of the have to say. (Cheers). It is so fatal an error, benefit of the trial by jury. I pray you, then, that my argument, founded upon the de- gentlemen, let us not attempt to deprive our claration, is to be good for nothing, al-Irish fellow-subjects of the trial by jury, and though it is not of the slightest consequence thus afford them a lawful cause for open resist to my argument. This is what the Americans ance. It has been several times put to the Irish complained of: -"That the King of England Secretary, and to other members of the Cabinet, has called together legislative bodies at places what they meant to do? and they have been uncomfortable and distant from their resi- asked why they did not tell the House what dences." That is one charge, and this is was in contemplation? Ministers first demand another:-" That the King of England has the power of putting a halter round the neck, male judges dependent upon his will alone and then, perhaps, they may condescend to let for the tenure of their offices, and for the us know what it is for. They never have whisamount and payment of their salaries." I do pered their intentions; and an hon. Gentlenot speak of the judges; but how far this is man said, last night, that it was quite pruthe case with the justices of the peace in Ire-dent that they should keep the secret to land, I cannot say. The Americans go on to themselves he would contend that it was complain, "That he has erected a multitude quite prudent to deprive the Americans of the of new offices, and sent hither swarms of trial by jury, but not quite prudent to tell us officers to harass the people, and to eat out what they mean to do to prevent the recurtheir substance." Whether such is the case rence of similar calamities. Upon their own in Ireland, whether any people have been sent showing, Ireland is always to be thus: more there to eat out the substance of the people, I and more power will be wanted, heavier and will not take upon me to decide. The next heavier punishments will be inflicted. Genaccusation is," that he has kept upon us tlemen on the opposite side have said, that standing armies without the consent of our there will be a concurrence of redress, and own legislative bodies." Whether this applies what they mean, I suppose, is, that redress now I know not, but at all events what follows should go hand-in-hand with coercion. It is will not fit :-"That he has affected to render impossible: the two things never can go the military independent of and superior to together; there never can be any such couthe civil power." They have not affected that currence. For my part, I should not wonder in Ireland; it is not affectation there." The if orders had been already given, and if the Americans proceed-" He has combined with masous and blacksmiths were already at work others" (meaning the two Houses of Parlia- to prepare dungeons for the guiltless and ment, and what impudent dogs they must unfortunate intended victims. (Cheers, and have been)," to subject us to a jurisdiction, cries of "No"). I do not say that it is so; foreign to our usages and unacknowledged by but that I should not wonder if it were; and I our laws, giving his assent to their acts of know that in 1817, the rapidity in this respect pretended legislation." The next charge goes was so great, that people were astonished that even further-" That he has quartered large so many were so quickly prepared. It would, bodies of soldiers among us without consent." at most, ouly occupy about eight-and-forty This ground of complaint I hope never can hours. Let me ask, then, is it to be the first apply to Ireland. (Cheers). I trust that there act of this reformed Parliament to pass a Casis not a shadow of ground for applying to our | tlereagh and Sidmouth measure? I trust to present, this charge against a former sove-God it is not; but I trust too, if it be to be reign. Then we come to the following-" For protecting the troops by mock trials from punishment for any murders committed on the innocent inhabitants." Let the right hon. Secretary for Ireland think of this! let Irish gentlemen think of this! It is a short sentence, but conclusive, and it speaks to us as with a voice from above." For depriving us in many cases of the benefit of trial by jury." (Cheers). Let us reflect that this justified resistance in the case of America is according to the opinions of members of his Majesty's servants; but be it remembered also that never went SO far in my life. (Hear). That never justified the Americans in taking up arms against their lawful sovereign, whom for many years we called "the best of kings.' In the conclusion of the declaration they apply to him an opprobrious name, which I will not

carried by any means such as I will not express, that there will be men enough to resist the project; to oppose the intentions of Minis ters, aud to show the people of England, and the people of Ireland especially, that hope is not yet quite shut out, and that they ought to rally at the backs of those who have struggled for the preservation of their freedom. I said that I would not trouble the House long, and I will only occupy its attention for a few minutes longer. Perhaps what I have to say may not be very pleasing to some, but I must make an observation upou the eulogium passed upon Lord Grey-for his generosity towards the Roman Catholics-for his zeal in their cause and his sacrifices. If it were decorous for a minister of the King to boast of his generosity in doing that which was absolutely necessary for the preservation of the peace of the country, I