adulity of mankind; when I remember, that, at a period more proxi mate, in the memory of most of us, in 1807, when the Whigs proposed that your Catholic fellow-countrymen should be eligible to places of honour in the naval and military professions, again for factious purposes, that same cry was raised-that when there was no Lord Normanbywhen there was in Ireland no political agitation--when of O'Connell nothing had been heard-yet, upon Ireland, and upon the religion of her people, and the ministers of that religion, the same odious calumnies were cast, and we were held up, as a nation of idolaters, of blasphemers, and of perjurers, to the execration of the English people--and that all this was done by the very party who, in eight years afterwards, themselves proposed and carried the very measure, which has been made the instrument of all this abominable excitement; how, when I remember all this, can I feel surprise that for the same bad purposes, men should be found capable of resorting to the same base expedients; and that, to the same execrable passions, they should address the same infernal invocation? And what was the state of England, when, to recover possession of office, the Tories of 1807 raised their "No Popery" cry: You stood upon the verge of a tremendous peril: the great conqueror was in his full career of victory; and, had he landed an army on the frish shore, little short of miracle could have saved us. But now, we are at profound peace; now, nothing is to be apprehended; now, the Orangemen of Ireland can trample on us with impunity, and on the neck of the Irish people the foot of Rodenism may with impunity be planted. Ha! be not too sure of that! And, that you may not be too sure of it, let us, for a moment, consider who are the Irish people? The noble lord the member for Stroud, on the first night of this debate, read a passage from Edmund Burke, in which it is stated, that the Irish Catholics had been reduced to a mere populace, without property, education, or power. And, if we were still what we once were, then, indeed, to our old Orange masters we might again with impunity be given up. But a prodigious change has befallen in our condition—-a change greater, perhaps, than any of which in the annals of any people any example can be found. Who, then, are the Irish people? They are those mighty masses, who, gradually recovering and emerging from the effects of conquest, of rapine, and of oppression, brought to bear against the tyranny, once deemed as irresistible as it was remorseless, the resources, which nothing but a cause just beyond all others in the sight of Heaven, and the deepest consciousness of the heart of man, could supply; and after a struggle, of which the fame should be as imperishable as the results are everlasting, by dint of indefatigable energy, of indissoluble union, and of undaunted and indomitable determination, won from their anta gonists their irrevocable freedom; who, following up that noble event in a spirit not unworthy of it, became the auxiliaries of their British fellow-citizens, in another great achievement-and now, demanding equality or its only alternative, and putting in for that equality a justly imperative requisition, stand before you in one vast array, in which, with increasing numbers, increasing wealth, increasing intelligence, and increasing and consolidated power, are associated and offer to your

most solemn thoughts, a series of reflections, which should teach you to beware of collision with the Irish people. You talk to us of collision with the Lords of collision with millions of your fellow-citizens beware; beware of collision with those millions, to whom a power has been imparted, which in your hearts you know you can never recal. If the member for Tamworth, on the first night of this debate, cautioned us with any truth to beware of "entrance in a quarrel," with how much more justice should he himself be warned to avoid a contention with those of whose prowess he has already had an experience so instructive! Such a contention would not be wise. What do I say, wise? it would not be safe, and its consequences might be disastrous beyond what it may be prudential to point out. It is not to Ireland alone that those consequences would be confined; they would extend far beyond her; and every British interest would be affected by them. "We are at war," exclaims the Duke of Wellington, " in America and in Asia." If we are at war in America, this is not the time to hand Ireland over to the rule of that party, who, between Catholics and Protestants, between Irishmen and Englishmen would draw the "boundary line." We are indeed at war in Asia, and disclosures have recently been made respecting the views and feelings of Russia in regard to this country, which must convince us that the peace of Europe is more than insecure. With respect to France, is it not manifest that, if the Tories had been in office two months ago, and had acted on the principles which they profess in opposition, we should have been hurried into a war with France by the blockade of Mexico? Algiers remains as a ground of difference; and, independently of these considerations, France itself is in a state so volcanic a concussion, and an eruption are so probable—that upon any permanent alliance with that country it would be rashness to rely.

This, then, is not the time-this is not the befitting time-in the heart of the British empire, amidst two-thirds of the population of these slands-in place of that sentiment of impassioned allegiance which Lord Normanby succeeded in creating, to substitute a feeling of deep, resentful, and perilous discontent; to convert Ireland into a source of your weakness, from a bulwark of your strength; to make her an item in the calculations of your antagonists, and to the external risks by which we are encompassed, to superadd this fearful domestic hazard. These are reflections which will not be lightly dismissed by you, if to the modern name, by which your party desires to be designated, you have any claim; if, to the real interests of this country, to the integrity of this vast dominion, and to the safety of Ireland, a principle truly Conservative is to be applied; but if it shall be otherwise-if, blinded by party-if, of everything, except the gratification of factious passions, and of antipathies national and religious, you shall be regardless, and you shall give no heed to the dangers consequent upon their indulgence-it only remains for me to pray (and in the deepest sincerity of my heart that prayer is offered up) that you may not live to lament, that to the admonitory intimations given you, by the events which are passing around you, you were insensible, when your regrets will be embittered by the consciousness, that repentance will have become useless, and remorse will be without avai

LORD STANLEY'S IRISH REGISTRATION BILL.

SPEECH IN THE HOUSE OF COMMONS, JUNE 10, 1840.

THE argument of the noble lord is at variance with the statement with which he commenced his speech. He began by stating, that the first clause in his bill would not operate as a disfranchisement of voters already registered, but he afterwards proceeded to advocate the principle of disfranchisement, from the consciousness that the first clause was founded upon it. He insisted, that a multitude of claimants had found their way by illegitimate means upon the registry, and that by a process of re-investigation, introduced into this bill, those claimants ought to be deprived of the privilege which the registry had conferred. This is disfranchisement to all intents and purposes. The clause proposed by my noble friend, the Secretary for Ireland, is, I admit, at utter variance with the clause so strenuously supported by the noble lord, and which, indeed, constitutes the essence of his bill. The noble lord disfranchises upon grounds antecedent to the registry, while the Secretary for Ireland confines the revision to matter which has arisen subsequent to the registry. For the imperfections incidental to the Irish system of registration and to what system of registration are not imperfections incidental? the amendment proposed by the Secretary for Ireland affords a commensurate remedy. Vested rights-rights obtained through the means provided by the law for their acquisition, and which are therefore vested, are secured by the amendment, while, at the same time, care is taken, that where those rights in point of fact have ceased to exist, the loss of the qualification shall operate as a defeasance, and of the mere form of registry no fraudulent use shall be made. The names of those who have died or become insolvent, or who have parted with their interest, are to be struck off the registry, and as outstanding certificates may be employed as the means of personation, the whole system of certificates is to be abolished. The noble lord calls, by way of retort, the abolition of the certificates a disfranchisement. Certificates are but the evidence cf the title to vote. The title itself is not affected by the change of the evidence, and the Solicitor-General's proposition does no more than substitute a different proof less liable to exception, by which, however, the right to be proved is not in the slightest degre affected. This misrepresentation upon the part of the noble lord is very inconsistent with those professions of fairness in which the noble lord so frequently and so strenuously indulges, from a consciousness, I fear, that those professions are not wholly uncalled for upon the part of the noble lord. The clearance of the registry of all those who have forfeited their title since the registry by means of an annual revision, ought to satisfy those who do not look for anything beyond the correction of the abuses which we ought to be solicitous to remove. But it is urged by the noble lord, that crowds who never possessed the qualification have found admission to the registry. If this were true, if their allegations were well founded who to the abuses of the Irish registry

66

are so sensitively alive, but who to the fabrication of fictitious votes, who to the profligacy, the corruption, the bribery, the debauch, the perjury, and its more infamous subornation which prevail at your own elections, are philosophically insensible, and give to Ireland the exclusive advantage of their virtuous, but not wholly disinterested indignation— if, I say, their allegations were well founded, and practices so corrupt had been employed for the purpose of giving an undue preponderance to the popular party, it is obvious that the constituency would be enormous. The country would swarm with spurious voters, and herds of wretched serfs would be driven, at every election to the hustings under the terror of what the noble lord, with his usual happiness of conciliatory phrase, was pleased to designate as excommunication." But what is the state of the constituency of Ireland, and how do the statistical returns laid upon the table of this house sustain the statements of the noble lord, who, not contented with revision, insists upon re-investigation, insists upon an appeal to the judge of assize, and all those complicated impediments to the extension of the elective franchise, which, in the spirit of consistent "obstruction," the noble lord, with an ingenuity so perverse, has so elaborately devised? The noble lord is a proprietor in the county of Tipperary. He corresponds with the agents of Conservative Clubs in that county, and he has been intrusted with several petitions, not indeed very numerously signed, from the county which I have the honour to represent, in which it was stated, that "thousands" had been improperly admitted upon the registry. What then is the constituency of the county of Tipperary? That county is of great extent, remarkable for its fertility; it is studded with large and thriv ing towns, and its population exceeds 400,000. You will say, you will of course conjecture, that under such circumstances the constituency of the county Tipperary must amount to 10,000. No. Well, to 8000: No. To 6000? No. To 5000? Not 5000. To 4000? Not to 4000. Well, then, to 3000? With the aid of sacredotal anathemas, and secular imprecation, we must needs have, at all events, raised our practical voting constituency. At the last general election, the contest lasted for five days in the county of Tipperary. The county was polled out, and the numbers who voted did not amount to 2400. And here let me advert to a letter stated by the noble lord to have been written to him by the agent of the Tipperary Conservative Association, containing a narrative respecting two tenants of Mr. Faucett. The noble lord does not know Mr. Kernan, his correspondent-never saw him in his life-never heard of him before, and yet he produces a letter written by that gentleman, as a ground for disfranchising the constituency of Ireland. This is indeed a strong proceeding. He would sentence Ireland to a deprivation of her rights on the evidence of a mere letter which would rot be received upon the trial of the meanest case in the meanest court of judicature in the kingdom. I have received a letter from a very respectable gentleman, Mr. Michael Meagher, distinctly contradicting the statements of Mr. Kernan. Mr. Meagher says:

"About a fortnight back my attention was called to a report of a speech purporting to have been delivered by Lord Stanley, in his place

&

In the House of Commons, on the 18th ult., relative to his bill on the Irish elective franchise. In a portion of that speech he is reported to have stated that he received a letter from a Mr. Kernan, registry agent for the Conservatives of North Tipperary, wherein, amongst other, things, it was alleged that a tenant of Mr. Faucett, over eighty years of age, held a farm, out of which he registered in 1832-that in 1834 he gave up the farm to Mr. Faucett, from his inability to hold the same ---that Mr. Faucett gave him an acre of land free to live on-that at the election of 1837, this old man of eighty years of age was dragged to the hustings at Clonmel, and there made to vote for Sheil and Cave, notwithstanding his being warned by his landlord not to do so, as he knew his title was extinct.' Further, he (Lord Stanley) is reported to have stated, from the same information, that another tenant of Mr. Faucett, named Roger Meara, registered in 1832-was murdered in 1837-was placed on the list of applicants for registry in January, 1840, and that the agent produced his (Meara's) former certificate of 1832--swore that he received it from said Meara for the purpose of having him re-registered, and actually got him registered on that occasion before Mr. Howley, assistant barrister.' The first statement is false, inasmuch as Mr. Faucett has but four freeholders on his entire estate, and those held a lease before he (Mr. Faucett) purchased the property, which lease is still n existence; the same freeholders still hold the same farm and franchise --none of them are either eighty, seventy, sixty, or fifty years of age— no tenant has surrendered his farm to Mr. Faucett; for, to do that gentleman justice, he does not render any tenant unable to pay rent. As I was one of the persons who conducted the freeholders from this county to Clonmel at the aforesaid election, I solemnly declare that there was no tenant of Mr. Faucett's of that age, who went to the hustings; the only tenants of his that went were the four herein mentioned, and they had, and still have, a bona fide interest in their farms to entitle them to the franchise. With regard to Roger Mcara, it is true he registered in 1832; it is true he was murdered in 1837; it is also equally true that his name was on the list of applicants for registry in January, 1840, for this reason-the person who is registry agent for the liberals in North Tipperary, being unable to ascertain all the persons who were either dead or disentitled to re-register, served notice for all persons on the former registry list in this division; thereby giving an opportunity to every person legally entitled to come forward and re-register. Roger Meara's name, through that means, appeared on the list of applicants in January, 1840; but as to the agent producing his (Meara's) certificate, that I distinctly deny. I was the only person who held the certificates of the persons from the division where Meara did live. It is untrue that Meara was either registered in 1840, as stated by him, or ttempted to be registered either by me or any other person. I will put the matter at rest by challenging Mr. Kernan to show Roger Meara's name on the new list of registered persons for 1840, or any ist but that of 1832."

Here, then, is a direct contradiction of the assertions-the unsupported assertions of a man whom the noble lord never saw in all his life, of