MR DAVITT AND IRELAND IN WESTMINSTER.

Auckland Star, Volume XXVI, Issue 300, 18 December 1895, Page 2

MR DAVITT AND IRELAND IN WESTMINSTER.

(To the Editor,)

Siß,~ln Mr Davibt'a address on Friday evening Nov. 29, he said that the member*

of the Irißh Parliamenb had been openly bribed by William Pitt to destroy the Irish Legislature. "The effecb of this Act of Union upon Ireland had been disastrous in every way. .Population had fled from the country; Ireland had less people to day than she had 95 years ago," etc. Dr. % Dunbar-Ingram'a edifying work, " A His- ' tory of the Legislative Union of Greab Britain and Ireland " (published in London in 1887) tells another tale. Afber referri&jg bo the Bull of Pope Adrian, who void Ireland to Henry 11., he says : "The Popa gold an island which was nob hia property, and bho Irish kings and nobles ratified tho fraudulent Papal transaction. The proceedings were dig. , credituble to all concerned, end especially to the Irish, who have ever been more remarkable for turbulence than patriotism." In the reign of Edward 1., reprcßentati»ej of Ireland served in the English Parliament, and this representation continued hill the reign of Charles 11. When Charles was in exile, Cromwell incorporated Ireland with England, and Ireland was repreaenfced in the Parliaments of the Common, wealth. After the Restoration, in 1660, s the system ceased. .Meanwhile, however, Irish Parliaments had been held afc irregular intervals and in various places; but they were little more than assemblies convened to register the wishes of the Lord-Deputy for the time being, aud, as a rule, the interest of England was maintained no mau«-i what happened to the interest ot irtilund. There waa n 0 limit to their existence, except the demise of the Crown or a dissolution, and in one case Lha duration of the Irish Parliament) wae 33 years. The national debt increased, and taxation of imports crushed life out of trade. The products of England were received in Ireland afc nominal duties, while the products of Ireland wore met in England by duties amounting to prohibition. The fiscal aystern waa considered intolerable, and wag the chief factor in promoting the volunteer movement in 1782, from which sprung the comparativa independence of whai is known aa Grattati'a Parliam3nt, beginning in glory and ending in disgrace. The movement demoralised the population, opened the door for tho United Irishmea and other conspirator*, expanded into the terrible Rebellion, "«d the up&hob was tbo Union. Tho Itange had baen advocated by Sir Wru. irowster in 1694, by the patriotic Molynunx in 1603, by the Irißh Parliament in J703 and 1707, by Bishop Berkely in 1735, by Sir M aether Decker in 1749, by the ceiobrated Addin Smith and others. These distinguished thinkers nai writers, true friends of Ireland, earnestly recommended tho legislative union of England and Ireland.

Mr Davibl) then refers to America, and says, " England lost America through its assinine attempt to govern people3,ooomileß away from a back street in London. If, moreover, tho satno thing had been tried in the case of Canada, that country would now be a loyal British coiony." lam of opinion Canada is now a loyal British colony, and the late Premier, Baron Macdonald, said shortly before hirf death, " Ho was born a British subject, and he hoped by the help of God to die one." But governing America, 3,000 miles away from London, and governing Irelaud, 300 miies away from that place, are different things. Dublin is no further away from London than is Wellington from Auckland, and if a Parliament in Wellington can do work for the colony of Now Zealand it is not unreasonable co suppose that a Parliament in London can legislate for Great Britain and Ireland, the two countries being about the same extent.

Mr Davitb referred to Ireland^ showing that Roman Catholics had no religious prejudice towards Protestants, and instanced the case of tho equestrian statue of King William 111. in Dublin, which some considered an eyesore to the city, when 50 Roman Catholics and 10 Protestants voted a sum of £100 out of the corporation funds to; renovate the statue. And what did William do that he should not be honoured by both Protestants and Catholics alike. He had witnessed in Holland the agreeable prospects of all sects and religions living peaceably together, and he was, both by heart and head, disposed to toleration, Tho Pope himself was a friend of William. Linguard tells us thab "not only the moat powerful of the Catholic princes, bufi the Pontiff himaelf (Innocent XL), had entered into bondsof amity with thePrincoof Orange; and the same author tells us that no lets than 4,000 Catholic soldiers fought in William's army, and that the officer who commanded the Dutch Guard was a Catholic. And Butler, in his " Memoirs of feus Catholics," calls the reign of William" the era from which their enjoyment of religious toleration may be dated." I therefore think there was no sacrificing of principles to renovate the statue of so great a man, whose reign, taking its difficulties into consideration, was the most successful and the most splendid recorded in the history of any country.—l am, etc.,

J. Carnahan.