It has been our fortune to experience not unfrequently the reward of those unaccommodating prophets who will not consent to speak "smooth things" when they would be "deceits." Our warnings have been rejected as frivolous, and our motives for uttering them have been pronounced unworthy. Still, through evil report and good report, amidst reprimands and encouragements, we have adhered to the principles and policy which we held to be wisest and best, and we have good reason now to believe that many of those opponents who contemned our admonitions, and made light of our reasonings, may have learned the wisdom which they would not receive from us, in the progress of menacing events which we had anticipated and predicted.

Very few years have elapsed since that time when the great majority of Conservative politicians would see, in the obscure agitation of plans for the repeal of the legislative union, nothing which could justify alarm. The devisers of such plans, they said, the directors of such agitation, had no object in view but that of basely serving themselves. They were men of malignant passions and disappointed ambition, who could feel a joy, such as demons may feel, in convulsion and disorder. They were men of broken fortunes, to whom pestilent and seditious activities recommended themselves as a source of revenue. They were not men who really contemplated the ends at which they professed to aim, or who indulged in the faintest hope or surmise that such ends were attainable.

We are old enough to remember when representations of the same character were made respecting the agitators for what was called Catholic emancipation. The parties who were

then described as having no public interest at heart, lived, nevertheless, to see a measure of vast public momenta concession, indeed, involving a fundamental change in the British constitution-yielded to their persevering and seditious importunities. The same parties, or, to speak with more precision, the same individual, (in whom a party, vast in numerical strength, appears concentrated,) after this great success, advanced in his demands, and claimed a repeal of the legislative union. His efforts were met by many a friend to the integrity of the British empire with the same arguments which had already proved ineffectual: we were not disposed to place reliance on them. They had been proved, and found weak. We thought them worse than weakpernicious. We felt convinced that they could not harm the cause of repeal with its supporters. We feared they might disarm the vigilance of its opponents. We employed other arguments, which, at the time, offended some of our friends, but to which, we apprehend, events have since given authority.

It is our firm persuasion that, had the legislature of Great Britain been alive to the dangers of repeal agitation, the municipal reform bill for Ireland in its present form would not have become law. So long as "repeal" was regarded as a scheme for promoting Mr. O'Connell's personal interests, and Mr. O'Connell was regarded as an individual who had none but personal interests to serve, it was no more than reasonable to conclude that no great evil was likely to arise from granting to cities and towns in Ireland privileges which had been already bestowed in other parts of the empire. What was acknowledged as a right in England and Scotland, it was thought unwise to withhold

from the people in Ireland. Had the schemes for effecting a repeal of the union been thought formidable, a different opinion might have prevailed; but, so long as a large party in the British senate regarded Mr. O'Connell's motives and views as sordid and personal, and his schemes as having no other object than to make dupes of all who could be allured into taking part in them, it was thought that the inconveniences likely to arise from transfering the corporations of Ireland from Protestants, who had ever been faithful to British connection, to the party who are now ascendant, were not so injurious and grave as the consequences were likely to become, of resisting the clamorous earnestness with which municipal reform was demanded.

The concession of these claims was, to no little extent, a compensation to the repeal party in Ireland for their virtual loss of office. For six years they might be said to have governed the British empire and its dependencies, through the medium of a ministry contented to hold office as their agents and representatives. It is a strange episode in British history, the annals of this "alien" government. It was, in the judgment of the repeal party, their government of a conquered country. The king, the people, the nobility of England were overpowered by the ascendancies of an anti-Anglican party. England, however, was not subdued. During six years of adversity and danger she prosecuted efforts almost without a parallel, to recover her lost power. The blessing to be looked for on all such labours was vouchsafed. England has resumed her power, but the party from whom she rescued it has attained a strong-hold of no ordinary strength. The repeal party has won, in the Irish corporations, fortresses from which it may, with much effect, make demonstrations of its power, and create embarrassment to the defenders of British connection. "Give to O'Connell and the priests," we long since observed,* "popish and radical corporations, and what will be wanting to complete the machinery for repeal agitation through the length and the breadth of the land? And that once set a-going what is to stop it?

what power exists without or within the constitution by which it could be arrested or controlled, until it accomplishes its work, and eventuates in the dismemberment of the empire ?"

When we uttered this prediction, the cabinet of the "Litchfield-House compact" was in power. We have now, and are thankful for the blessing, a ministry of a different description. Sir Robert Peel's government does not hold place during the pleasure of Mr. O'Connell, and is not likely to forfeit the power of serving its country by opposing measures calculated, if not designed, to effect the national ruin. We are not, therefore, without a hope that the schemes of the Irish corporations may not have all the success which, under other circumstances, we had apprehended: but we are very sure that no reflecting man will require of us at this day to justify our predictions. All that we anticipated as to the consequences of municipal reform has taken place. If our worst anticipations are not perhaps speedily realised, it must be, humanly speaking, because Great Britain is now blessed with a ministry powerful enough, and wise enough, to withstand the efforts of what no true friend to the empire should deny to be a very formidable party. It is not by affecting to despise its power that the efforts of such a party can be counteracted.

We are not sorry to see that the proceedings of the Dublin corporation during the late glorious three days have become matter of permanent record. They will instruct many whom it was difficult to convince, as to the ambition which prevails within that municipal body, and they have procured for us a gratification and an advantage of which, had not Mr. O'Connell's speech on February 28 becn formally reported, we might have been deprived.

A corrected report of Mr. Butt's speech in reply, delivered on the same day, has been published. The occa sion and the effort were both memorable.

The occasion was, as it were, the opening of their batteries from the reformed corporations of Ireland on the integrity of the British empire. The effort was a masterly defence of

British connection on the part of one who had predicted the hostility which he then stood forward to resist, and who met the difficulty when it arose with no less fearlessness and ability than he had aforetime avowed his apprehensions of it.

On February 28, 1843, Mr. O'Connell, an alderman of the city of Dublin, moved in the corporation that a petition for the repeal of the legisla tive union be presented on their part to the imperial parliament. The day may be memorable in our country's history. It will become disastrously so if the war which was proclaimed upon it be not vigorously and wisely resisted. We should desire to discern in this necessary resistance the presence of a spirit such as pervades Mr. Butt's admirable speech-a spirit of energy, tempered by the thoughtfulness which ensures due moderationa spirit of unflinching resolution to maintain great and abiding interests and principles, tempered by that respect and concern for national feelings, and even for honest prejudices, which often recommend to good men the reasonings of an adversary, and render them persuasive.

It was an intellectual contest of no ordinary character, that in which Mr. O'Connell and Mr. Butt discussed the propriety of petitioning for a repeal of the union, and not the less remarkable for the peculiarity that neither of the competitors could put forth his whole strength in the struggle. The great strength of Mr. O'Connell's case lay in the advantages of separation from England: Mr. Butt's main strength would be found in consideration of the danger to Protestantism and property. The occasion was one which prohibited the use of such topics. Mr. O'Connell had to make out his case without the reasoning which separation would supply. Mr. Butt had to meet his opponent without the weapons which peril to all national institutions would supply. We do not mean to say that either of the speakers was altogether abstinent with regard to topics of which they could not make a liberal use. Our meaning is, that they must have employed them, if adverting to them at all, with a most embarrassing caution, and we will do both gentlemen the justice to say that ability was no less conspicuous on both sides

than the circumspection which circumstances rendered necessary.

As a specimen of the ability and temper in which the discussion was conducted, we shall offer one of Mr. O'Connell's arguments, and Mr. Butt's reply.

The third proposition, which the honourable member proposed to establish was, that the right of Ireland "to have a domestic parliament was fully established by the transaction of 1782." In proof of this assertion, after sketching in his usual manner a history of the volunteer armament, and the circumstances in which it had its origin, Mr. O'Connell proceeded thus

"The lord lieutenant, then in Ireland, was changed. The Duke of Portland was then sent over; and on the 16th of April, 1782, addressed the house in these words-'I have it in command from his majesty to inform this house, that his majesty being concerned to find that discontents and jealousies are prevailing among his loyal subjects of this country upon matters of great weight and importance, his majesty recommends to this house to take the same into their serious consideration, in order to such a FINAL ADJUSTMENT as may give mutual satisfaction to his kingdoms of Great Britain and Ireland.' I will only read one paragraph of the reply which was given by the House of Commons. It is in these words-That an humble address be presented to his majesty, to return his majesty the thanks of this house, signified by his grace the lord lieutenant, to assure his majesty of our unshaken attachment to his majesty's person and government, and of our lively sense of his paternal care in thus taking the lead to administer content to his majesty's subjects of Ireland. thus encouraged by his royal interposition, we shall beg leave, with all duty and affection, to lay before his majesty the cause of our discontents and jealousies. To assure his majesty, that his subjects of Ireland are a free people. That the crown of Ireland is an imperial crown, inseparably annexed to the crown of Great Britain, on which connexion the interests and happiness of both nations essentially depend; but that the kingdom of Ireland is a distinct kingdom, with a parliament of her own, the sole legislature thereof. That there is no body of men competent to make laws to bind this nation, except the king, lords, and commons of Ireland, nor any other parliament which hath any authority or power of any sort whatever in this country, save only the parliament of Ireland. To assure

That

his majesty that we humbly conceive

THAT IN THIS RIGHT THE VERY ESSENCE OF OUR LIBERTY EXISTS; a right which we, on the part of all the people of Ireland, do claim as their birthright, and which we cannot yield but with our lives.' Why was not that threat met? Why was it not set at defiance? Why were they not called on to part with their liberties or their lives? Oh, no! the English government succumbed-the king became sensible that an adjustment was necessary-and the cause of quarrel was removed. My lord, they said that the essence of liberty existed in a domestic parliament, and the king of England, and the parliament of England passed a law, disclaiming for ever any privilege or right to interfere with the then established independence of the Irish parliament.

"Thus was a solemn treaty between the two nations entered into, concluded, and ratified. It was a solemn international compact. But, alas! England never yet observed or performed a treaty with Ireland. No; she never made a treaty with this country which she did not violate in the most flagrant manner. She took every occasion to violate the most solemn compacts with Ireland. And to show you that I do not exaggerate, I will read for you presently, the first authority in the land to prove that he concurs with me in that sentiment. Remember I promised you to read the words of Bushe, describing the foulness of English treachery— words which are stronger than any I have uttered. Recollect, too, that the nature of the question under discussion was the right of Ireland to make her own laws, and that that right was confirmed by those proceedings. It had a double effect-it admitted the original right, and re-asserted it for ever by a solemn national confirmation, which put an end to all future questions being raised on the subject. I could read passages on passages for you to show how often it was said by the men in the government of each country, that no constitutional question could hereafter arise between England and Ireland-that every such question was set at rest, and for ever. Time has, no doubt, passed away, and many years have elapsed since this contract was totally and shamelessly violated; but there is no statute of limitation against the liberties of a people-ages may roll over, yet their rights remain. If the rights of the monarchy were stricken down to-morrow, they would still exist. And let it be remembered, that those of the Irish people were co-extensive and co-existent with English dominion; that the final adjudication of 1782, was a solemn

treaty and confirmation of those rights; and shame on those who now continue its violation. Oh! may my countrymen rally round me, until their mountain shout is heard even in St. Stephen's, and the cry of liberty is re-echoed through the land.

"Ireland may have her freedom obscured, but the cloud is passing away, the awful solemnity of the treaty of 1782 is emerging from obscurity. This final adjustment was insisted on at the union, then insisted on in vain, but in the healthier days that are springing up, a sounder policy will be insisted on with an irresistible vigour. Here is the ninth reason set out in the protest against the union, recorded by the Duke of Leinster and nineteen peers, two of whom were bishops. 9th- Because we consider the intended union a direct breach of trust, not only by the parliament with the people, but by the parliament of Great Britain with that of Ireland, inasmuch as the tenor and purport of the settlement of 1782 did intentionally and expressly exclude the re-agitation of constitutional questions between the two countries, and did establish the exclusive legislative authority of the Irish parliament without the interference of any other. That the breach of such a solemn contract, founded on the internal weakness of the country, and its inability at this time to withstand the destructive design of the minister, must tend to destroy the harmony of both, by forming a precedent and generating a principle of mutual encroachment in times of mutual difficulties.' And so it will be made when England is in difficulty, and the more readily when she has not strength to treat with contempt or scorn the assistance of the loyal portion of the people of this country.'

Mr. Butt does not concern himself in disputing the correctness of this argument. He adopts the far wiser course of setting the proper limits to his adversary's conclusion, and showing the real value of his argument—

"There is no impression more common, yet none more utterly erroneous, than the belief, that in adopting the views of the honourable and learned gentleman, we are but demanding for Ireland the restoration of something that this country once had. I am quite prepared to demonstrate to this assembly that there cannot be any thing like restoration in the case.

"Ours is not the case of an ancient dynasty, to the memorials and traces of which we can point-ours is not the case of a people with a law and a con