now propose, and no more, we shall have no difficulty and no ground of complaint. If it shall ask more, we shall be free to reject what is 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 revolution 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 If we had not withdrawn the political and physical means of self-defence and of resistance from Ireland during the last sixty years, she would now have been able to have maintained a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, the strong, and that he was surrounded by the aged, the poor, and the spiritless. It is these reflection upon the propriety of the act itself, and upon the relations in which we stand towards 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 would have power to gratify: That wish would 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 this wish. It would be a goodly and a gracious sight to see that honorable Senator returning to his native land after his chivalrous and yet modest sojourn here, the bearer of a proclamation of amnesty from the sovereign of his native country

||

thus obtained. And I should rejoice to see the greeting of him by his countrymen,

"Shouting and clapping all their hands on hight,

That all the ayre it fils and flyes to Heavene bright." Mr. BADGER. I had desired to say a few words on the subject of this resolution, and as the honorable Senator from New York has concluded his remarks in briefer space than was expected, I do not know of a more suitable occasion. After

every examination which I have been able to give to this subject, I cannot persuade myself that it is proper that the Congress of the United States should pass the resolution in any of the forms in which it has been proposed to our consideration, or in which it has been suggested that it can be hereafter made worthier of our approbation. If I could vote for the resolution in any form, I would undoubtedly vote for it in that which it has assumed upon the suggestion of the honorable Senator from Illinois, [Mr. SHIELDS;] and if anything could persuade me to forego the exercise of my own deliberate judgment, and put myself under the mastery of those feelings which are apt to be excited by discussions of this kind, to favor the adoption of the resolution, it would be the speech delivered on last Saturday by the honorable Senator from Illinois, full, as it was, of everything

that can do honor to a man's head and heart.

But whatever my feelings of attachment, consideration, or sympathy for the other nations and races of the world-and I trust I am not deficient in those feelings of consideration and sympathyI must prefer my own country, my own race, the people and institutions among which I was born, and in which I have been reared, to all other nations and all other races in the world. I cannot, therefore, consent to give my support to any measure, however commended to us by high considerations of sympathy, which, in my judgment, is capable of having an unjust and injurious ope tion upon the country to which I belong. I will not undertake to say what nation of the earth, if any, is next in my regard to my own; but any all of them-if next, must be after a vast interval

of distance.

This resolution proposes that the Congress of the United States shall express, and that the Congress of the United States shall declare, and that we feel it our duty to express an earnest desire that the Queen of Great Britain will extend her royal clemency to certain Irish prisoners now confined, under a sentence, to Van Diemen's Land. Now, in the first place, I do not feel myself called upon by my duty as an American Senator, to express any sentiment upon that subject. But that would be that is the smallest of the difficulties that press upon my mind. Though I cannot recognize the duty, yet if no evil consequences could be readily imagine to result from it, I might, nevertheless, be willing to give expression to the wish. But, sir, I ask you, who have had no little experience in the state and condition of our foreign affairs, and the management of our diplomatic relations with other countries, and the reciprocal operations of proceedings of this kind, whether we can affirm that there is no danger from the precedent which we are now setting?

My honorable friend from Michigan, [Mr. CASS,] in the remarks which he addressed to the Senate-remarks conceived and expressed, I will not say with a force and clearness that was not usual with him, but certainly with great force and clearness-when this subject was under consideration some fortnight ago, laid down some propositions to which I wish to invite the attention of the

Senate, and to show, if I can, that the mode by which he undertakes to defend the proceedings now recommended to us, is one that must, or, at all events, one that may lead to mischievous counter interference with our concerns; and that the suggestions which he has thrown out for the purpose of dissipating the fear of such a result, when properly considered, are entitled to no weight. First, the Senator laid down a proposition in these words:

"Mr. President, a great change has taken place in the opinions of the world on the subject of political offences. They nowhere carry with them reproach or shame. They violate, indeed, existing laws; but they generally originate in the most praiseworthy motives, and are pursued at the hazard of every earthly good, as Washington and a host of other illustrious men in ancient and modern days, pursued their patriotic enterprises."

nized as being unfortunate, but not vicious. Indeed, they are often noble men, as are those whose case engages our attention, and who deserve the kind interest of the world, both from their motives and their character, and also from the position, once high, but now low, to which they have fallen, and in consequence of an effort, made, not for themselves, but for their country. It cannot be-there is not the slightest danger of it-that such a national application will ever be made, in any case but in one like this, which is as far from moral guilt as innocence is from crime. Let no one fear that this example will ever be used, or abused, for the purpose of intermeddling in the ordinary criminal pro

ceedings of other powers."

Again, the honorable Senator says:

"As to improper interference, it seems to me an entire misconstruction of the term to apply it to a case like this.. It is not interference at all; it is intercession. It is a simple request, made from the best motives, in the best spirit, and presented in the most unexceptionable language; and it leaves the British Government free to act its own pleasure, without giving us the slightest offence should the result be unsuccessful."

is interference. Intercession is one mode of interNow, I wish to say, in the first place, that this ference. It is not an offensive mode of interference; but it is a mode of interference. He who undertakes to intercede between the judge and the offender-between the sovereign and his convicted subject, undoubtedly interferes. It seems to me that the honorable Senator is entirely mistaken in supposing that intercession is not interference. It is true that all interference is not intercession, beCause we may interfere by threats, by violence, by blows; but it is no less true, that every intercession is an interference. Then I am not exactly prepared to admit the fundamental, the original proposition, from which the argument of the honorable Senator from Michigan starts, which is, that political offences, though they violate existing laws, are yet offences accompanied with no moral guilt. I can conceive of such a thing as a political offence, which, though violating municipal laws, is not accompanied with moral guilt; but I do not think it is regularly, or generally the case, or can be affirmed as a proposition either universal, or with but few exceptions. But, assuming it to be so: then the honorable Senator says, we come forward and do not interfere, but intercede for these political offenders, upon the ground that they are persons free from moral guilt; that they are noble patriots, who have been condemned to a grievous imprisonment-originally condemned to the forfeiture of life, for the discharge of high acts of patriotic duty to their country; and that the noblest motives influenced them in what they had done; and that they are not to be considered as affected with any species of moral guilt.

Now, be it so. Assume that it is so, and that we wish it to be so. How was the transaction

viewed by the British Government? That Government prosecuted these men as traitors-for an attempt to overturn the existing Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. For this offence they were convicted. For this offence they received the sentence of death; but the sentence was afterwards commuted to an expatriation or exile in Van Dieman's Land. It seems to me that the English Government will scarcely think, that when they have prosecuted these men for an offence of this kind, pronounced by their laws to be capital, when after conviction and judgment they have not thought proper to pardon the convicts, but have exchanged the sentence of death to that of banishment from the realm, that they are honorable and noble men, who have been influenced by high and patriotic motives in what they have done. The British Government look upon them in a far different light and description. Well, that being the case, how does it follow that we have no reason to fear, that if we set this example, we shall not have it followed with a very unpleasant and disagreeable interference in the administration of our own laws?

I come from a part of the country which is looked upon as especially conservative. When the breezes of public sentiment are blown until they have agitated the community into a state of almost incapacity to judge of what is right and prudent, in consequence of the proximity to certain portions of the United States, of motives, and considerations, and influences, that are apt to stir them into a great degree of excitement; we are in the habit of considering a little, (being ourselves somewhat removed from those immediate causes that operate to mislead the judgment,) to look a

little ahead, and to inquire now what we do today, may be done in a very unpleasant manner in respect to ourselves to-morrow.

Now, let us suppose for one moment that some of the actors in the Christiana riot had been found guilty of high treason. They were indicted for that crime. High treason is a political offence. We know, in this country, of no treason like that which from time to time has been established by particular statutes in England. We know of no treason except levying war against the United States, or giving aid and comfort to their enemies. Suppose that the transaction in which any of these parties were engaged, had been declared to be an act of levying war against the United States-and that being an act, adopted in consequence of a concert to prevent entirely and in all cases the execution of a law of the United States, it was in no judicial sense to be discriminated from any other attempt to destroy the authority of the Government, and put an end to the supremacy of the laws: I pray you, sir, if that case would not in a few sympathizing minds, on the other side of the water, have presented a case with all the claims which the honorable Senator from Michigan brings forward in behalf of these Irish exiles, for the interference of the masses, or the Governments, or the Parliaments, or the other legislative assemblies on the other side of the water, under the strong feelings of modern humanity and general sympathy for the oppressed everywhere? Why, to those people these Christiana rioters would have appeared noole men-guilty, it is true, of committing the little technical offence of violating the municipal laws of the country, convicted, to be sure, of what was called treason against the United States, but influenced by high and noble motives, under the full inspiration of the "higher law" enthusiasm, which prompted them to come forward and at every earthly hazard, not for the benefit of themselves, but, as my friend from Michigan said with regard to these gentlemen, for the benefit of their country, to relieve the oppressed, and to prevent the wronged and hunted wayfarer from being dragged back into the captivity from which he had luckily escaped. They would be looked upon as men influenced by a high and lofty spirit of hospitality, who, with outstretched arms, were willing, even at the hazard of destroying the Constitution of their country, to carry into effect the high, noble, and generous purposes and impulses of their nature.

Mr. President, I confess the idea which has occurred to me, that the proceeding instituted by us might be extremely unpleasant and disagreeable when resorted to in future contingencies of the country by persons abroad, who would assume precisely the same position that the honorable Senator has assumed, that they were not interfering in our concerns, but only interceding—I say that my fear has not been removed by the assurances which he has given. I can well conceive that no application of this kind will be ever made by a foreign Government, that no resolutions will ever be adopted by the English Government, except in favor of those whom they think to be meritorious objects for their interposition; nor shall we ever adopt any proceeding, except in behalf of those whom we regard in that light. But that is not the question. If we are to interpose, and think we can interpose without offence, and that we can properly interpose, and that it is our duty to interpose, because we look upon these persons who have been sentenced to this punishment by a foreign nation as meritorious and noble men, entitled to our sympathies and accompanied with no moral blame-how can we resist the right of a foreign State, of a foreign Parliament or legislative body, to interfere in precisely the same mode with regard to citizens of ours whom we may think worthy of the extremest punishment, but which they regard as occupying the same relation to moral guilt which we attribute to the persons in whose behalf this resolution is now proposed? We should cut ourselves off, by adopt ing this proceeding, from any right to object. I see not where the thing would end. Resolutions of the British Parliament may be passed and sent to us, or communicated to us, in a kind of indi

rect, secret, and unostentatious mode, to which the Senator has referred, through their Minister in this country.

Upon this subject I wish to practice upon the old-fashioned morality of doing as I would be

done by. I want no interference of foreign States or Governments in our internal affairs anywhere, and therefore I am not willing to set a practical example of such an interference on our behalf with their internal concerns. I know that this resolution springs from the highest and best motives. I know that my honorable friend from Illinois, [Mr. SHIELDS,] who has moved it, has, at least in my judgment, no superior in the honorable, the fine, and elevated sentiments that belong to the human heart. But it was well remarked, as I think Sallust, or some of those old Roman writers told us, that Cæsar once said in the Roman Senate, that there was never any course of measures which had brought ruin upon a country which, at the first outset, did not spring from some good motive, and in the initiative were intended to accomplish some good end.

Seeing, then, as I think I do, that the step which it is asked of us to take, may lead to the unpleasant and disagreeable consequences I have mentioned, I cannot myself vote for this resolution. But I beg to say, before going further, that in the illustration which I have selected for the purpose of conveying to the Senate the notion which I have of the evils to which we may be subjected, I do not mean at all to intimate that the gentlemen, to whom this resolution refers, are to be for one single instant confounded with the Christiana rioters whom I mentioned. Far otherwise. I intend no such odious or unpleasant comparison. I merely selected the case as an illustration of the principle upon which we may be hereafter assailed through a proceeding thus instituted by

ourselves.

The honorable Senator from New York, [Mr. SEWARD,] in the remarks which he submitted to the Senate this morning, after assuring us that there was no danger that Great Britain would take any offence at this proceeding, became exceedingly bold, and held in very slight regard and estimation, any, even the most serious, displeasure of that Power. I am not a very valiant man, and I confess myself to have a pretty large share of that extreme reluctance as well to cutting the throats of other people as to having my own cut, which is denominated by the word fear. And I go one step further. In my representative capacity I have a great deal of fear of involving this country in collisions with the great Powers of the earth. Who should not fear it? Is not war a dreadful evil? Is not a war with the greatest naval and commercial power of the earth, if in the latter respect our own country be excepted, a fearful evil? Who does not fear such evils? I fear them for my country. I fear them for those why may be called upon on such an occasion to wage the battles of the country. It is very easy for us, particularly for those of us who are past that age when we are liable to be called into the service of the country in the prosecution of any of the wars in which we may be involved, to talk lightly about force, and wounds, and battle, and death. If we know that the conflict is to be waged by others, and not by ourselves, we can be very brave with a very small amount of personal exposure. But I should fear such a result far more on another ground, and that is, I should fear my country producing upon itself the displeasure of other States by going out of its way to do what as a nation it had no right to do. I should fear putting ourselves wrong in the outset of such a proceeding. If we must have a conflict with Great Britain, or any other nation, let us be right in the commencement, in the prosecution, and throughout the whole conflict. And rely upon it, sir, that when such a conflict comes, if come it must, which God forbid, those who have some little salutary fear beforehand of the coming emergency, will not be found the least resolute to do what that emergency may require.

I have, however, an objection to this resolution of another and different kind from that suggested by the Senator from New York. It has been said by the Senator from Michigan, that Great Britain will not regard this in the light of an officious intermeddling with her concerns. We hear from various quarters that the probability is, that the British Government, acting upon this intimation of the wishes of the American people, will gladly interpose and discharge these gentlemen from their hard captivity. For one, I should be sorry that the British Government should, at our interposition, and as a favor to us, set these gentlemen at

liberty. And why? Because it is very obvious that that places us under an obligation to the British Government. It not only entitles them to interfere, by way of interceding in behalf of our people, if any of them should be convicted of offences similar to that to which I have referred, but it also entitles them to come with a claim upon us that they should be heard. I, for one, am not willing that this country should lay itself under any such obligation to the clemency, or courteousness, or kindness of the British Queen.

I do not join in the denunciation which the hon. orable Senator from New York has this morning poured forth upon the conduct and character of the British Government, and_the_conduct and character of the British Church. But while I do not choose to enter into such tirades of denunciation upon any foreign nation or establishment, I nevertheless say this, that I wish to be indebted to them for no such favors as will entitle them to interfere in our domestic concerns in the first place, without any right of complaint on our part; and, in the second place, with the right of complaint on their part, if we do not treat their interposition as favorably as they have treated ours. And if I did pronounce the denunciation which the honorable Senator has this morning pronounced on the English Government and people, I could not make the disclaimer which he has made. He speaks of Ireland and the Irish as being the victims of the most detestable, barbarous, and unprincipled oppression. I do not mean to quote his words. That is the substance of what he said. At the same time he says, he has no prejudice against the e oppressors. I do not understand how a man can extend his equal sympathy and regard to the op pressor and the oppressed, to the wrong-doer and the wronged. If the first part of the gentleman's argument be correct, it appears to me he cannot, without inconsistency, do otherwise than not merely denounce that Government, but have, if that is a proper word, prejudices against the Government and people, a just animosity founded upon the fact that, upon his own showing, they are totally unworthy of consideration and regard. I enter into none of these matters. I am not called upon here to pronounce as to the conduct and character of the British Government. I am not called upon here to pronounce as to the character and conduct of Messrs. O'Brien, Mitchell, and the other gentlemen who are in the calamitous condition of exiles from their country, under a sentence of banishment.

It is sufficient for me here, whatever opinions, as an individual, I may entertain upon the subject, to say that, as a Senator of the United States, I cannot consent to give my support to a measure which, whether it give offence or is met by approbation and accordance on the part of the British Government, seems to me will be followed in either case, and in the latter case personally and chiefly, with consequences which we may see occasion to deplore.

There is one sentiment which was expressed by my honorable friend from Michigan, which commands my most cordial approbation. I was struck with it. I felt its force, and the propriety of its application, to the question now under con consideration, and some kindred subjects which, though not now before the Senate, lie upon the table. It is in these words:

"It is best to let a little common sense into our diplomatic questions."

I know of no case which, according to my judg ment, more requires that we should let that wholesome, sound proposition have due weight and influence upon us. Yes, sir, let us have a little common sense in the regulation of our concerns. Do not let us be carried away captive with emotions which, however generous and noble in themselves, do not furnish the proper guides for representative conduct. A man, in the private transactions of life, may allow a profuse generosity and inability to refuse any applicants for help, to exhaust his purse, and beggar himself for life; and when this is done, however severely we may disapprove of it, we are obliged to have a sympathy for him who, under such generous impulses, has sacrificed himself; but representatives and nations are bound, in my judgment, to have all their sympathies and feelings under thorough and complete control-to regulate themselves by understanding-to let common sense weigh, in all their deliberations, because they are not like a generous man who squan

32D CONGRESS, 1ST SESSION.

ders his own, for if they yield themselves up to these unguided impulses, they squander what is not their own-the wealth, the power, the resources of the State of which they are only the representatives. They sacrifice not themselves, but their country.

With the kindest feelings and the highest respect for my honorable friend who takes an interest in the passage of this resolution, I must say, that for these reasons I cannot give it my vote in any form or shape.

speech the other day, and I repeat it now. If we make this application in this manner to England, she is just as free to act against the application as for it; and we are just as free to act in any case for or against an application as though this case had never occurred. That is my view of it. Mr. BADGER. Mr. President, I am extreme

ding to an article which has been published, because it gives me an opportunity of saying, that as I am not a subscriber to that paper, and do not take it, I have never seen the article. I have only one or two remarks to make further.

Mr. CASS. Mr. President, I am much obliged to the honorable Senator from North Carolina, for introducing one or two topics on this occasion, more particularly since I saw them adverted to the other day, in the principal Administration paper. Mr. BADGER. What paper is that? Mr. CASS. It is called the "Republic." Mr. BADGER. I never saw the article. Mr. CASS. I would not have introduced the matter myself, but the remarks of the honorable Senator give me occasion to advert to it. That paper compared the speech which I made some tinie ago on this subject to that made by my honorable friend from Illinois; and said that mine was a very violent assault on the Governinent of England. Nothing could be further from my intention than to make any such assault. What-tury-perhaps for a third of a century. Look at ever my opinion may be as to the English Government and people, (and there is much to commend in both,) it would have been a very improper occasion in me to have indulged here a hostile feeling towards England; and from one end of my speech to the other, there is not one word to which the most sensitive person on this subject can object. From my indistinct recollection of the subject, I remember that the only thing which I said which could possibly be construed into disapprobation of the English Government, was the remark, that an Irishman was the victim of harsh and hard laws at home. Well, there is not one Englishman from Land's End to John o' Groate's house, that would not say the same thing. I am therefore glad that my honorable friend from North Carolina has done me that justice, that a man with my speech before him in that very paper, would not do when he charged me with using violent and hostile language against England.

Mr. BADGER. I hope the honorable Senator does not mean to intimate that I have used any such language.

Mr. CASS. The very reverse. I am much obliged for the expression of his opinion on the subject; and I am contrasting that with the expression of opinion in the "Republic. It did not give me any trouble, but still I thought it better to advert to it.

The honorable Senator has alluded to another topic which I find in the same place; and although he does not go so far as the paper goes in his views on that subject, he differs from me. I refer to the subject of the moral turpitude now annexed to strictly political offences throughout the world. Why, he who has not marked the signs of the times on that subject, is entirely behind the age. He who does not know, that for the last fifty years there has been a wonderful progress and change in public opinion in respect to the moral turpitude of the men who are guilty of political offences, does not know the progress of opinion throughout the world upon this subject. In England I do not now remember how many species of punishment there were formerly, but I know there was quartering, and taking off their heads, and cutting out the bowels, and burning them, and other equally horrid punishments. But we tear of no such punishments at this day. Who would now stand up and advocate such punishments? The sentiments of the world have totally changed. The object three hundred years ago was to protect the person of the sovereign: that was the whole object in view; and laws were passed for that purpose. They made it the most infamous crime, which commanded the greatest moral turpitude of any to be found in the long catalogue of human offences, to attempt the subversion of the Government. According to the English law, if our Revolution

the progress of events in France. For many a long year not a single drop of blood was shed there for political offences. Political offences there are recognized as not calling for the effusion of human blood, and as not being attended with moral turpitude. Therefore I said the other day, that they were indeed offences against existing laws, but yet were not viewed in the same light with other crimes; and in saying that I said just what is the opinion of the age; and I now repeat, that the turpitude-that the condition of the offender against the laws depends entirely on the state of the country, and on his object in endeavoring to make a change in the Government.

My honorrable friend from North Carolina has supposed two or three cases. I shall not go into them in detail, for I remarked the other day, that when just such a case as this happens, and the British Government has the same natural interest in interceding as we have in this case, I, for one, shall be very happy to hear and listen to them. But what similarity is there between the case supposed by the honorable Senator and this case? Suppose the Christiana rioters had been found guilty of treason: what kind of treason would it have been? Not the treason of which Washington was guilty; not the treason of which Kossuth was guilty; not the treason of which O'Brien was guilty; not that treason which shakes governments and establishes republics; but constructive treason, by which the effort to put down a particular law, not aimed at the government at all, is construed to be treason. I go for no such purpose as that. I would say to England, that that is not the class of offences in which the offenders are relieved from moral turpitude in the eyes of the world.

Again: the honorable Senator seems to presuppose, that because we apply to England to procure a pardon for these gentlemen, therefore, if she applies to us in any extreme case, we must do the same thing. Why, we are just as free to act before as after; she is just as free to act before as after, and after as before. We say, that under the circumstances in which these Irishmen were convicted, and a large portion of our people being their countrymen, taking a deep interest in their fate, we ask the British Government to extend its clemency to them. They refuse it or they grant it. If they make us a request, not based on the same circumstances at all, are we bound to grant it? No, sir. It imposes no kind of obligation on us to grant it; and yet, from the tenor of the remarks of my honorable friend, it would seem as though he bases his argument on the fact, that if we apply to England and she grants our request under these circumstances, we must grant any request, she may make under any circumstances. 1 totally disclaim any such idea, and I did it in my

The honorable Senator seems to suppose that it is a very grievous crime for men to assemble and to associate themselves together for the purpose of preventing the execution of one of the laws of a Government, but that the parties concerned would at once lose the character of men influenced by immoral motives if their object was to put an end to all the laws, and destroy the whole authority of the Government.

The argument of the honorable gentleman is this: that assembling together and concerting by force to prevent the execution of one law is not a political offence to which the public opinion of mankind does not annex criminality and moral turpitude; but if the object be to put down all the laws of the Government, and to destroy its authority, then the parties concerned in it lose the character of moral offenders, and are only offenders against the municipal law, untainted with moral turpitude. There cannot be any such distinction as that.

The honorable Senator referred to the case of Washington and his associates. Surely the vindication of Washington from moral turpitude does not arise from the fact that he was engaged in an enterprise to put down the authority of the British Government here. It arose from the fact that he was engaged in it, with his fellow-countrymen, from justifiable reasons and for ends that in themselves made a resort to force for that purpose allowable and justifiable. Therefore the honorable Senator's argument has nothing to do in refuting the reasons which I submitted to the Senate. My reasons were not founded at all upon any determination of the question whether or not Mr. O'Brien, Mr. Mitchell, and their associates, had or had not justifiable grounds for the proceeding which they adopted to separate Ireland from her present connection with Great Britain. Not at all. My argument is this: Great Britain did not think so; the English Government did not think so; that Government considered them as not only engaged in an unlawful enterprise, but an enterprise of wickedness; because in their view it was an enterprise by which the United Kingdom, and Ireland itself, would have been, if not destroyed, greatly injured; and that inasmuch as the sovereign of Great Britain having caused these gentlemen to be prosecuted for an offence which she deemed to be a grave one, and they having been convicted of that offence, were sentenced to the punishment of death, and that punishment commuted to banishment from their country, the British Government would regard us as interposing in behalf of men who do not merit such interposition. That Government cannot recognize these gentlamen as being noble patriots, engaged in doing what was for the good of their country, and what it was an act of glorious self-sacrifice in them to endeavor to achieve. recognizes that character, why have they been sent to Van Dieman's Land? If the Queen of England looked upon them as possessing the character which the honorable Senator attributes to themand very justly, for aught I know, I have no jurisdiction over that question and shall express no opinion upon it-she had as full power to pardon as she had to transmute the punishment; and therefore the consequence is as I have shown, and which nothing has been said to weaken the force of, that our interference here would justify the interposition of Great Britain in behalf of just such offenders as the Christiana rioters, if they had been convicted of high treason against this country. I think that if such an application had been made,

If it