"JUSTICE TO IRELAND "—AND TO ENGLAND!

TO THE EDITOR OF TUE sPECTATOR.

How can you then shrink from my conclusion, that the result proves The Ministry of Lord MELBOURNE owe a debt of gratitude to the

Darrynane Abbey, 87th August 1;36.

Sot—The Spectator does "penetrate to Darrynane ;" else I should be deprived of much entertainment and instrattion also—and of the opportunity of setting myself right with you and your readers. The substantial point of difference between us is this—I assert that the majority of the English nation are indifferent, or worse, hostile, to the claim of the people of Ireland to "justice." I assert that in- dilfrrence, or rather that hostility.

This you deny. I wish you would convince inc that you are right in so denying : but you content yourself with assailing my reasons. And for this purpose you have one great advantage over me, resulting from a preposterous report of a speech of mine made in °taints The species of argument given in that report is indeed absurd, but absurd to the very last point of absurdity. My vanity is much piqued that any person who knew me for an hour should bring himself to believe me capable of testing public opinion by the conduct of the Cuasoos voters. In sober sadness, I will say that I am not capable of any such non- sense.

The substance of what I said on that occasion was just this—which is my present opinion also—" That I would concede, for argument sake, that a numerical majority of all the people of England were favourable to doing justice to Ireland ; yet that the disposition of the English nation towards Ireland was best evinced by the class ef voters' —that class constituted the portion of the English people most if not solely efficient for political purposes. I insisted that it was by the class (f voters alone that the opinion of England could be known with any certainty. It was true that such class included the CHANeos voters, who in general had not the pourer to express their own senti- ments, and showed only those of their landlords: so far the experis merit was not complete : but whatever defect existed in the experiment as to the counties, was compensated for by the town of Newcastle, when the only difference between the two candidates was that which touched the government of Ireland. The enemy to Ireland was elected, and the friend to Ireland rejected."

I therefore said, "that if it were asserted to me that the People of England are favourable to the Irish, my answer would be in one word, Newcastle."

You say this would be a foolish answer. My reply is, that it would be quite a rational answer.

As far as mere assertion, we are upon an equality. But you proceed to reasoning. You say BRACKET was rejected by the Newcastle elec- tors because he was a mere 111ig—that he did not go far enough for the Reformers of Newcastle, who therefore rejected him. You also al- lege that if a Radical Reformer had stood, the result would have been

his return to Parliament. •

According to you, the Reformers of Newcastle rejected BRACKET because he was a Whig, whereas they would have elected him had he been a thorough Reformer. Patience, my good Sir, patience—you go too far. Recollect that 411VNewcastle did not merely and singly reject BRACKET for not being Re- former enough, but it elected Hoecsosr, who is no Reformer at all.

If the Newcastle men acted on your principles, and rejected a mere Whig, why, what confounded blockheads must they be, to elect an un- equivocal Tory !

Really, with' all your talent, you look only at one side of the ques. tion. You see BRACKET rejected, and you exclaim—" Mighty well! Out with him ! He is not Reformer enough. Out with him ! the mere Whig!"

You forget, in your joy at the blow given to the Whigs that there is a stronger blow given to the cause of Reform by the election of a stark staring Tory.

No—the truth is, that the experiment at Newcastle was complete. There was but one essential difference between HoousoN and BRACKET—only one—that related to Ireland. BRACKET was for the Ministry, who are tranquillizing Ireland by some practical justice; he was for the Appropriation-clause; he was for Municipal Reform in Ireland. 110DOSoN, on the contrary, was against that Ministry—against the Appropriation-clause—against Corporate Reform in Ireland. It was impossible to bring before the minds of Englishmen in a more simple and single shape the question of "good government for Ireland." There was no other question at that election. Both can- didates rejected Ballot and Short Parliaments, and extension or uni- versality of suffrage. The Irish question was the only question

theonly difference between them.

the electo:s of Newcastle to be either indifferent or hostile to the righta of the Irish people ? You suggest that the majority svas divided by the Iladi ts.:, who would have elected Colonel NsmEn—and in truth they coeld not have found a better man ; or SIIAR3IAN Citawroun—who is introduced by you I do not distinctly know why—but be it so : then it was Ra- dical Reformers who turned the scale. Alas, for poor Irel: n I, when her friend was rejected, and her avowed enemy returned, not by Tories or neutral politicians, but by Radicals ! Thus you strengthen my argument, instead sI weak ening it : and you give me double cause of regret —first, because you °Arm my im- pression of English hostility to Ireland ; and secowily, In cause, in- stead of rousing English honesty to bestir itself for Ireland, you shift and palliate the nature of the crime committed—and, alas ! renewable— by the English constituencies. You say, it was English sympathy that secured for Ireland Emanci- pation. I should be delighted to believe it : but I cannot, because know directly the reverse to be the fact. An ;uninense majority of the English were violently hostile to that in:az:lire. Only kok at the list of petitions in the year 1829; and, recollecting that the Govern. merit party, as well as all the sections of Liberals, were oppo:ed adverse petitions, it will. I think, convince you that we one nothing to an English majority—though we owe much to individual English advovates—for that emancipation, which, after all, was nisinly achieved by ourselves. Her " hereditary bondsmen" did it, and here I ant who led them on.

It is to the last degree discreditable to the English nation to be

indifferent to the rights of the Irish people. Ill the first place, it

proves a want of gratitude; secondly, it proves a want of due attention

to their own liberties, because the popular party in Ireland are active and ready partisans of British freedom; thirdly, it proves great igno- rance of' the best interests of Great Britain, because, if the Irish ,aeople were fairly and justly treated, they would be the best consumers with whom the British manufacturers could deal in peace, and in war they would be the best allies Britain could have,—whereas, whilst the Irish pee* experience iejustice, their consequent poverty unfavourably affects British manufactures and commerce in times of peace, and as to war—Great Britain can never again attempt to go to war whilst Ire. land has just cause of disaffection. Upon these points we agree, and our policy aims at the same objects. But you think you will drive the Whig Ministry into a course of more active exertion for measures of amelioration. I do much fear you will . fail. Lord MELBOURNE and his Cabinet seem not to understand their own position. They have the Court party luefile to them to the last degree, because in that party centres the worst practical details of Toryism. They have the Lords, led on by the most base of mankind, sustained by the most selfish of the human race, and encouraged by the. least chivalrous but the most daring of successful adventurers— they have such a House of Lords to contend with. It is true, they might have the People, the irresistible People with them—but they neglect the People—they foolishly neglect the People, and more foolishly endeavour to conciliate enemies who have neither the inclina- tion nor even the capability of being conciliated. It is, I admit, a mast melancholy thing to find the Whig Ministry in such a position. They have the means within their reach to be all- powerful. They Intro only to throw themselves on the People—to act/or the People, with the People, and in uid of the exertions of the People. What a glorious career lies before Lord MELBOURNE and his col. leagues, if they do but possess energy and integrity adequate to the lofty destiny that awaits them ! They may, if they please, add more than one-third to the strength and resources of the empire. They nil conciliate Ireland, and become the first of benefactors to Great Britain. See how successful is Lord Musettavs's experiment—con- sisting of nothing but the working out of common sense and common honesty ! Yes, but it is a vigorous exhibition of common sense—it is a manly display of common honesty! The MELBOURNE Administra- tion may give to the British Crown seven million of friends and sup- porters—they may confer permanent prosperity tn ti ose seven milions of human beings, and on their accumulating posterity. No Ministry ever had so glorious a career before them. Ireland, after more than six centuries of unmitigated oppression, is ready for conciliation—for union—for identification with Britain. The first dawn of impartiality is the first exhibition of dutiful tranquillity. The great national question can, nay, MUST now be decided,—Are the Irish People to be fellow subjects; or are they to be—I will write it

?

Lord MELBOURNE may blot out the enmity for ever—he may make the Irish willing and most useful subjects. But for this purpose—and I joy that it should be so—he must satisfy the rational portion of the English People. He must content the English and Scotch Dissenters —they ask only for "justice." Ile must become the advocate of an increased and extended franchise. Ile must consent to shorten the du- ration of Parliament. He must not shrink from the Ballot. Above all, he must prepare for the conflict with the Lords. The contest has begun by and from the Lords. Hitherto the Ministry and the Commons have not gone beyond—even if they have reached—mere passive resistance. The state of active hostility must commence. It will commence, either under Ministerial auspices or without the countenance of Ministers. One way or the other, the fight must be carried on. The Lords have already begun on their part. If the Ministry desert the People in this crisis, revolutionary dangers will necessarily occur—nay, a violent revo- lution is, in my opinion, inevitable. The Lords will yield only to a de- feat. The People cannot much longer endure aristocratic despotism. A

violent overthrow of our present institutions must be the result of the present posture of affairs, unless the" Reform of the Lords" becomes

the watchword of the Ministerial party. If Lord MELBOURNE Will bilt conduct and manage that necessary organic change—if he will com- bine in his own person the popular leader with the King's Minister— the tninsition will be easy mid safe, and secure from social change or individual misery. His duty to his King and to his country equally demand, not that he should ride " on the political whirlwind and direct the storm," but that he should prevent every such whirlwind, and ten. der such a storm unnecessary, and therefore impossible.

Irish. Let them enable themselves to pay that debt, by joining now heart and band with the rational Reformers of England. The Peers —the Peers have shaken the foundation of the Throne—they have actually made the crown totter on the Royal head ! and at this moment the Monarchy is not safe, because the Lords are as selfishly malevo. lent towards the People as they are blindly confident in their supposed strength and stability. Unless the aristocracy of the Peerage be curbed and reformed, they will involve the Monarelay in one common ruin with themselves.

In this, not coming, but existing struggle, Lord MELBOURNE'S Cabinet can reckon on the zealous, the ardent, and the efficient sup- port of the Irish People and of their Representatives. We all feel deeply indebted to the present Ministry. It is the best—the only good Ad- ministration for Ireland that ever existed. If we go to the very verge of propriety in support of the present Ministers, their conduct in Ire- land is our excuse—ay, and our justification. It cannot be denied that Lord MULGRAVE'S government of Ireland has been as nearly perfect as the nature of man, and above all, as the nature of our institutions, could possibly admit. The only thing the Irish People desire is, that the Law would enable Lord MULGRAVE to do all the good he wishes. Ireland would be for ever tranquil and prosperous if the principle of Lord AIULGRAVE'S government was transferred to the Statute-book, and that the-Law enforced those just measures which he so anxiously endeavours to introduce.

The greatest curse that could be inflicted on Ireland would be a re- turn of the Tories to power. I do verily believe, that such return would be the greatest calamity the English People and the English Monarch could sustain.

I have wandered from my subject. You will pardon me. You see we agree in essentials. The Ministry must l'OPULAltizE themselves in England,—or Great Britain is deeply injured—and Ireland totally ruined for a century.

I have the honour to be, Sir, your obedient servant,

DANIEL O'CONNELL.