pleas are disallowed. We have exposed ourselves to the censure I will not say to the derision, of the world.

It is said, Mr. President, that there is danger of intervention if we accord these honors; that intervention will follow them. No, sir; it is not a question of intervention future, but of intervention past! There has been intervention already. Russia has intervened, and Hungary has fallen by that crime. Kossuth is an exile upon our shores in consequence of it. What we have done already, was by manifesting our sympathy for him, to express our abhorrence of the intervention of Russia, which has worked so great injustice, and to rebuke and prevent such intervention hereafter. What do we now propose to do? To grant a welcome to Kossuth. It is but the fit conclusion of an action already near complete. I greatly fear that we do not understand our own interests in this great question. We cannot extinguish sympathy for freedom elsewhere, without extinguishing the spirit of freedom which is the life of our own republic.

Again, sir, you may reject Kossuth; you may, if you please, propitiate despotic favor by trampling the exiles of all Europe under your feet. But what will you have gained ? This republic is, and forever must be, a living offence to Russia and to Austria, and to despotic powers everywhere. You will never, by whatever humiliations, gain one friend or secure one ally in Europe or America that wears a crown. It is clear that the days of despotism are numbered. We do not know whether its end is to come this year, or next year, or the year after; in this quarter of a century, or in this half of a century. But there is to come, sooner or later, a struggle between the representative and the arbitrary systems of government. Europe is the field on which that struggle must take place. While the representative principle is gaining strength among the people, the power of Russia is seen to culminate. That struggle will be between Russia, whose power extends across the whole northern part of the Eastern Hemisphere, and all the people of Southern and Western Europe. If the Russian autocrat prevail in that contest, we shall be left withont friends or allies in the Eastern World. Is it wise to deny ourselves the benefits of alliances with states kindred in political interests and constitutions? Far otherwise; true wisdom dictates that we lend to European nations, struggling for civil liberty, all possible moral aid to sustain them until they can mature and

perfect their strength for that great conflict, through which they are doomed to pass. The nations that we thus lawfully aid to raise up, will constitute a lasting and impregnable bulwark for ourselves.

NOTE.—The joint resolution was then ordered to a third reading, by the following vote:

YEAS–Messrs. Bradbury, Bright, Brodhead, Cass, Chase, Clarke, Davis, Dodge of Wisconsin, Douglas, Downs, Felch, Fish, Foot of Vermont, Foote of Mississippi, Gwin, Hamlin, Hunter, James, Jones of Iowa, King, Mallory, Miller, Norris, Rhett, Seward, Sbields, Smith, Spruance, Stockton, Sumner, Wade, Walker, and Whitcomb—38.

NAYS-Messrs. Badger, Borland, Clemens, Dawson, Morton, and Underwood—6. The resolution was then read a third time and passed.—ED.


FEBRUARY 11, 1852.

NOTE.—The Senate resumed the consideration of the resolution submitted by Mr. FOOTE, of Mississippi, on the 2d December, expressive of the sympathy of Congress for the exiled Irish patriots, Smith O'Brien and Thomas F. MEAGHER, and their associates

Mr. Seward had proposed to amend, so that the resolution would read as follows:

"That while we disclaim all intention of interfering in any way in the internal affairs of the Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, we deem it our duty to express, in a courteous manner, our opinion that it would be highly gratifying to the people of the United States, (many of whom are natives of Ireland, and connected by blood with the inhabitants of that country,) to see Smith O'Brien and his associates restored to liberty, and permitted, if so disposed, to emigrate to this country. And that this act of clemency would be regarded as a new proof of the friendly disposition of the British Government towards our republic, and as calculated to strengthen the bonds of affection now happily existing between the people of the United States and of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland."

Mr. PRESIDENT : The resolution now before the Senate, seems to me neither inconsiderate nor unimportant. It is a resolution which must have the assent of both Houses of Congress, and the approbation of the President of the United States, and so it would become a national act. It recommends—I might, perhaps, say solicits—clemency towards the patriots of Ireland who are suffering imprisonment in a penal colony; and it is designed for the information of the British Government, and therefore must be regarded as an appeal by the United States to Great Britain.

Sir, I think the proceeding is defensible upon the grounds of abstract justice and propriety, as well as upon a due consideration of the relations of all the parties concerned.

I beg leave to say, in the first place, that it is not altogether novel in character and principle. The patriots of Ireland, who are the subjects of this debate, are suffering imprisonment in consequence of an effort, honestly made, to restore their native land to liberty and independence. The sympathy expressed by this resolution for them springs from the same source from which the sympathy of the people of the United States has sprung, which has been habitually exhibited toward nations striving to assert the same rights—the sympathy which was, expressed by the people of the United States toward France in 1793, in 1830, and in 1848 ; toward Greece, toward the rising South American republics, toward Poland, toward Germany, and toward Hungary. Even in form, sir, the measure assimilates itself to the action of Congress in regard to Louis Kossuth, who has been, through our interposition, released from imprisonment in Asia Minor, and brought to our shores, received, and welcomed as a guest of the United States.

The interest which is expressed in this resolution for William Smith O'Brien, like that which is expressed toward Louis Kossuth, is not merely personal, but it is the reverential compassion indulged by the people of the United States for a fallen nation "in a man compris’d.” It is not, then, the cause of William Smith O'Brien alone—it is the cause of Ireland.

The merits of a nation's cause, and of its defenders, involve not merely the particular accidents or incidents which bring the cause before us, but the whole life of the nation. So it was that our forefathers, in adopting the Declaration of American Independence, reviewed the entire colonial experience in vindication of the act of abjuration of their allegiance to the British throne.

Ten centuries ago, sir, Ireland was an independent nation, possessing the elements and the forces of national stability. Ireland was guilty of one enduring crime-it was the crime of proximity to England. Ireland labored under one enduring misfortune—it was the misfortune that, for many centuries, she had remained unconquered and unconquerable. The crime provoked the cupidity of England, the misfortune begat divisions into septs and clans, and these civil distractions favored an invader. At the very moment, sir, when Henry, a Norman King of England—the second of that name, I think—was, as the chronicle relates, “casting in his mind to conquer the adjacent island, because it seemed to him to be commodious, and because its inhabitants were savage and rude,” he was applied to by a deposed Irish prince to reinstate him on the throne. The invader enjoyed one vast advantage : England had been successively subjugated by the Romans, the Danes, the Saxons, and the Normans, and in that rough experience she had acquired the consolidation and discipline which,

combined with the energy arising from a mingling of races, and an ambition springing from an insular position, have enabled her almost “to have the world in empire."

The invasion, of course, did not result in restoring the Irish King, nor did it result in the conquest of Ireland. It ended in only the establishment of a small colony upon the coast, enclosed with palisades, and therefore called “The Pale.” Within the “Pale” were Englishmen, English lords, English manners, English customs, and English rule; and without the “Pale” were the entire nation of Irishmen, with their hereditary princes, and their native language, customs, and manners.

Acting upon the law of nations, as it was then understood, these races regarded each other as natural enemies; and hence ensued wars unsparing and unrelenting. The Reformation forced a new element into this internecine strife. The Catholic Church in England had given place to one which suited its kings and people better Considerations of prudence, co-operating with a spirit of proselytism, determined the government of England to subvert the Catholic Church in Ireland. The sword was the missal sent, and a ferocious soldiery were the apostles of the new faith. The Irish preferred their paternal religion to that which was so rudely recommended to them by their enemies. The “Pale," although backed by England, was too feeble to subjugate Ireland ; and Ireland, distracted by the jealousies of her clans, was too weak to crush the “Pale;" and so for four hundred years continued wars, at the end of which both parties retained their relative positions and power. And thus all that important portion of the nation's life was worse than lost, in consequence of an imperfect conquest. At last, five hundred and twenty years after the first invasion by Henry, and at the close of the great battle fought on the banks of the Boyne, Ireland capitulated ; and at that time the entire twelve millions of acres of tillable land were divided and parcelled out among the invaders and the few apostatizing natives. Ireland capitulated; and, by the treaty of Limerick, subjected herself to the government of the “Pale.” But she reserved, in the most solemn manner, the liberty of conscience. This rightthe liberty of conscience—was not only stipulated by the treaty of Limerick, but was solemnly guarantied by William and Mary, now the common sovereigns of the two countries.

England, nevertheless, persevered in her policy of subverting

« ForrigeFortsett »