rection; but they were betrayed, and the rebellion was crushed in

the germ.

The government of Great Britain now assumed that the people of Ireland had tried, fully and fairly tried, the experiment, and had proved themselves incapable of exercising the franchise of self-government. The British Parliament, therefore, sent down. to the Parliament of the Pale what was called an act of Union, and in the year 1800, that mockery of a legislature adopted it, and surrendered its own perfidious and pernicious existence. By that act of Union, Ireland, in May, 1800, was in name united, but was in fact absorbed, and became virtually a province of the British Empire, with only the shadow of a representation of the Protestant minority of the kingdom in the British Parliament. Daniel O'Connell, a jurist and advocate of surpassing genius, eloquence, and learning, inferring, from the failure of the men of 1798, that the time for a martial revolution had passed away, at least for the present, conceived the bold purpose of obtaining a repeal of the penal code and the restoration of his country to a place among the nations, by a process of civil agitation, always within the restraints of the law, and looking for the effect through the action of the King and Parliament of England. In the year 1829, he obtained a signal triumph in the passage of the act of Catholic emancipation. There remained but one step between this memorable act and the freedom and independence of Ireland. That step was the repeal of the Act of Union. But the ruin and desolation resulting from the penal code, which Burke had predicted, pressed too hard upon the march of the Reformer. Ireland could not wait the slow progress and doubtful success of civic agitation. The nation divided between the parties of "Old Ireland," following the lead of Daniel O'Connell and his peaceful standard, and of "Young Ireland," under the revolutionary banner set up by William Smith O'Brien. Now, in point of fact, it is possible that even if the Irish people had remained united, neither of those policies would have been successful; but it is also certain, that when the nation divided and broke, both efforts signally failed. Daniel O'Connell died of a broken heart at Genoa, on a pilgrimage to Rome, and William Smith O'Brien, the leader of the Irish rebellion, being found without attendants, arms, or troops, was arrested, convicted of high treason, and sen

tenced to an ignominious death. His sentence, being commuted by the Crown, he is now an exile in Van Dieman's Land.

Simultaneously with the failure of these, the last efforts hitherto made for the redemption of Ireland, poverty and pestilence stalked abroad through that ill-fated country, exciting the sympathy of nations, and moving even the distant people and Congress of the United States to send relief. Depopulation of the island assumed a frightful momentum, and, from that time to this, has continued to give the last confirmation, which the most skeptical could have required, of the conclusion, that never on earth was a revolution more just or more necessary, than that attempted by William Smith O'Brien and his companions in exile.

Sir, it is not my object, in this review, to excite prejudices, here or elsewhere, against England, or against the Protestant Church within that kingdom. I have no such prejudices myself. I disclaim and disdain partisanship in regard to historic events. O'Connell was a Catholic; Smith O'Brien is a Protestant. The rage of the sects has died away in the agony of the catastrophe which has involved the people of both in a common desolation; and wise and sagacious men in England look on the decay of Ireland as an alarming presage of the decline of the empire. But, sir, on an occasion like this, Ireland is entitled to, and from me she has received, her vindication. The policy of England was the policy of the age, and of the times, and of systems; and this is her sufficient apology.

The sympathy of the American people, then, in behalf of Ireland, is just.

I proceed to remark, that this sympathy derives intenseness from the conceded genius and proverbial virtues of the Irish people. The plains of Waterloo, and the heights of Abraham, attest that they are brave as well as sagacious in war. Like the Greeks, in their decline, they have enchanted the world with their wit and song and eloquence. They are confessedly confiding and generous to a fault, while their whole history and traditions, reach ing now a period of a thousand years, exhibit not one instance of unlawful aggression. Is not, then, the tribute proposed by this resolution due to such a people? And if so, why shall it not be offered ?

I am answered, that this is a question for the British Government, and that it is they, and not we, who are to extend clemency

or pardon to the Irish exiles. I grant it, fully grant it. But men and nations are moved by persuasion. What is asked here, is not an exercise of clemency, but only a word of persuasion to be whispered to the power that can grant it.

I am told that we may lawfully sympathize, as individuals, in the misfortunes of these unhappy men, and of their more unhappy country; but that to this country as a political body—a state or nation-or to us as the representatives-the government of a nation-such sympathy is forbidden. This seems to me

equivalent to saying that we may indulge sentiments of generous compassion, but we shall never carry them into beneficent action. The sympathy of the several members of this Senate, or of this Congress, or of the individual citizens of the United States, will be unavailing. If that sympathy is truly felt by the nation, it can only be effectually expressed in the manner in which national sympathies, and determinations of the national will, are always made effective-by the action of the government. And, sir, let me say, that there is only one code of morals for mankind, and its obligations bind them equally, whether they be individuals, subjects, citizens, states, or nations.

I shall be told, that we may not intervene in this, which is a domestic affair of a foreign government. It is true that we may not intervene in the affairs of any government for unjust purposes, nor can we intervene by force for even just purposes. But this

is the only restraint imposed on us by the law of nations. That law, while it declares that every government has the absolute right to deal with its own citizens, according to its own laws, independently of any other, affords a large verge and scope for the exercise of offices of courtesy, kindness, benevolence, and charity. It is Montesquieu who says that "the law of nations is founded upon the principle, that every nation is bound in time of peace to do to every other nation all the good it possibly can, and in time of war, the least evil it possibly can consistently with its own real interests." It is upon this humane principle that diplomatic intercourse is maintained among the civilized nations of the earth, all of whom are, by the law of nations, regarded as constituting one great commonwealth.

Again, Mr. President, it will be said that if we adopt this resolution, it will, however harmless it be in itself, furnish a precedent for mischievous intervention, either by ourselves in the affairs of

other states, or by other states in our affairs hereafter. To admit this argument is to admit distrust of ourselves. We certainly do not distrust our own sense of justice. We do not distrust our own wisdom. So long as we remain here, then, we shall be able to guard against any such abuse of this precedent. Let us also be generous instead of egotistical, and let us believe that neither wisdom nor justice will die with those who occupy these places now, but that our successors will be as just and as wise as we are. So far as the objection anticipates an abuse of this precedent by foreign states, I have only to say, that if a foreign state shall ask of us just what we now propose, and no more, we shall have nc difficulty and no ground of complaint. If it shall ask more, we shall be free to reject what shall then be asked, as the British Government is free to reject our application.

Sir, this proposition involves a view of the relations of the parties concerned. The people of Ireland are affiliated to us, as we are to the people of Great Britain. Surely there can be no offence given by a younger member in offering mediation between the elder brethren of the same family upon a point of difference between them.

But what if Great Britain should take offence at this suggestion? What then? Why, then England would be in the wrong, and we in the right. The time has passed when this country can be alarmed, by fear of war in such a case. No one will confess that he indulges any such apprehension. Sir, Great Britain will not take offence. She knows that her greatness and her fame are well assured. She has no motive whatever to affect wounded sensibility. She will receive this suggestion in the same fraternal spirit in which it is made. Nor will she refuse the boon. She knows as well as we do, that rigor protracted beyond the necessity of security to the state, reacts. She knows full well, that for the present, at least, sedition sleeps profoundly in Ireland, and that the granting of this appeal will protract its slumbers. Great Britain will be thankful to us for our confidence in her generosity, for her motto is, "Parcere subjectis et debellare superbos."

While it seems to me that it is certain that we may, with propriety and success, make this appeal to Great Britain, the circumstances in which we stand, in regard to Ireland, render the duty of making it imperative. But for the instructions and example of the United States, Ireland would never have attempted revolu

tion in 1798, nor would William Smith O'Brien now have been an exile; for if it had not been for those instructions and that example, Ireland would long ago have sunk into the slumber of bondage that knows no waking. Again, sir; the failure of Smith O'Brien and his associates resulted from the exhaustion of Ireland. That exhaustion has contributed largely to the elements of our wealth, strength, and power. If we had not withdrawn the political and physical means of self-defence and of resistance from Ireland during the last sixty years, she would now have been able to maintain a successful rebellion. When O'Connell gathered the populace upon the hill of Clare, he found that Ireland was deserted by the vigorous, the young, and the strong, and that he was surrounded by the aged, the poor, and the spiritless. It is these reflections upon the propriety of the act itself, and upon the relations in which we stand toward the parties to it, that persuade my vote in favor of this resolution.

I have suggested to the consideration of the honorable Senator from Illinois, [Mr. SHIELDS,] some verbal amendments which seem to me calculated to improve and perfect the resolution, in accordance with the wish he himself expressed. Their design is to guard more safely the dignity of Congress and of the United States. If rightly conceived, they will have that effect. But I am not tenacious of them. I shall not press them against the wishes of the Senator from Illinois. If they shall be adopted, the resolution will have my vote. If they shall not be adopted, it will have my vote. The resolution as originally introduced would have received my support. Equally shall it have my support in the modified form it has assumed, through deference to the wishes of other senators.

And now, sir, when this resolution in any shape shall have been passed, there can be but one wish of mine in regard to the subject, that Congress will have power to gratify: That wish will be, that he who is now entitled to be regarded as the mover of the resolution, the honorable Senator from Illinois, [Mr. SHIELDS,] should be made the bearer of this appeal to the "Soveraine Queene," in whose will and pleasure the granting of it will rest. It is the remembrance of a scene in one of the oldest and best of English poems which suggests the wish. It would be a goodly and a gracious sight to see that honorable senator returning to his