The persevering Mr. Sharman Crawford has indited another long epistle
to Mr. O'Connell. He begins by questioning the assertion that the present Ministers are the only men in power," "who for seven hundred years ever attempted to do justice to Ireland ;" and, referring Mr. O'Connell to his own statement of Irish grievances, shows that no attempt has been made to remedy several of them. In his catalogue of grievances which Mr. O'Connell was wont to dwell upon as demanding immediate redress, and which the Melbourne Cabinet have shown 11() disposition to remove, Mr. C.aa ford ermine',"
rates the abolition of the forty-shilling freeholders, the injustice done to Ireland by the Reform Act, tithes, (" the annihilation of which in name and nature," their " extipation root and branch," O'Connell formerly demanded,) and the corrupt state of the Corporations. These are the chief, but there are numerous minor grievances enumerated by O'Connell at various times, wIsich the Government has not attempted to redress—.
" You have reprobated taxation by grand juries, without representation. A mock system of representation was produced by the former Government. A new Grand Jury Bill was passed by the Melbourne Government : did they introduce a real system of representation? You know they did not or would not. You have demanded that Justices of the Peace should be elected by the people: you know the Melbourne Government would not accede to this principle. You have called for the ballot of Juries in all cases, and the taking away from the ellOW11 the right of challenge, except for cause shown: will the Mel. bourne Ministry do this? You have complained of the power given to the landlord to distrain the growing crops, and their increased powers of eviction ; and of the Sub-letting Act, even in its present milder form than the first bill : would the Melbourne Government repeal these acts? In your speech on the Repeal of the Union, you speak of the country covered with a permanent police, not inaptly called a standing gendar /aerie :' you know this system has been extended and perpetuated by the bill of the present Ministry. You complain of the right of carrying arms being taken away hien freetnen—I presume you mean by the Licensing Act : have the Melbourne 31inistry attempted or promised to repeal this bill?"
In his address to the electors of Clare, Mr. O'Connell repeatedly insisted upon the necessity of a provision for the poor OM of the estates . of absentees and other proprietors—support for the sick, and opportuvides for work for the able-bodied " Now, Sir, here, at the commencement of your Parliamentary career, you urge this subject four times in your address, as the most impin taut inducement to the electors to return you to Parliament ; and you record a solemn pledge of sacred duty on this subject. I shall now, in the first place, serieusly and respectfully ask you, have you redeemed these pledgea—this solemn vow ? If you have not, you have the time, I trust, still before you ; and I fervently pray that your vow, and the fulfilinutit of it, may yet be legistered in Heaven in your favour. I next ask you, Si, ta crimple vonr nledges, here given, with the bill proposed last session by his Majesty's Ministers; and I cotreat jou to core. eider whether aueli a bill would be a fulfilment of those pledges? Would illcarceration in wotklionses be a domestic provision fur the sick and aged ? Would this be the kind of oppirtunity you would supply to the healthy and strong, to earn the wages of industry ? I do you the justice to believe it would not. No, Sir ; this bill would have been insulting and injurious to the poor, and oppressive and unjust to every class of the community. It would have been a delusirn—a mockery of 'elks: NVIly do you not )ourself propose a bill which would wiirk out our own pledges ? " Sir, I have gone through, I believe, the most impottant of the long list of demands which jou have made lot Ireland, except the Repeal itt the Union, which I do not mean owe to touch on ; and I have shown 1.11,0.,■tm lute nut, 011 a single 011.: of them, even the promise of all ilet of:egi.!,Ition, as eamhl do substantial justice to helaud, ace.rdilie to your own cjc l views of Mr
Watt'.''
On many othsr points, uut especially affseting tile opinions of 31ini-te, s and their acts were opposed to the kboo ii upiiiioiis of Mr. O'Conneli " They opposed Vol.,. by B epeal of the S:entennial .m' mlof dm Rate paying claus,s of the English Ileform oho{ item of Property ait lificaCeti if Mel-ulnas of Park:tun:lit, Awl:Gourd' Militar) Flogging, rem.% al id Ili-lops from the Muss of Lords, total repeal if Newspaper Stamps, Heine:odd or other Extension of the Starra,..e, abo:ition of Vote hy Prexy, ainetole.eot of the Law of Libel, (your own and Reform of the Lords. All these things they oppose; all these things you support, as necessary for the seen, its of pliblie liberty : on all these questions they have amalgamated with the Tories iu de.. feating the effints of the friealll of freedom. But there is :mother point in
their proceedings of last session, which gives a practical illustratien of what Ireland might expect if time was placel at the mercy of this aliMstry. Look how Canada has been treated—Canada, whose circumstances nod whose griev
ances bear so strong an assimilation to Ireland. Have you no compassion for Canada? have you no sense of her wrongs? and can you believe that a Govern. meat which refuses redrese to Canada—which violates her constitution, because she demands just l'efUlllAS—will da justice to Ireland, unless lieluil herself shall
extort that justice?"
Mr. Crawford then enters into a defence of his own motives in bringing the conduct of Ministers and Mr. O'Connell before the public in these letters ; and repels the absurd imputation, that he has any design of " aiding the Tories '• by their publication.
Previous page
