33
at the time of her "Subordinate" Parliament, and they will see that as far as in them lies England that deserted them shall not dominate wherever they may be.
Repeal.
The struggle for Repeal under O'Connell failed; it was not linked with the struggle for "the land for the people " that has energised the movement of Parnell. The statesmen, too, of the time were too much alive to the dangers of the Divided Kingdoms to dally with the question, and there was no readiness then to sell the British Empire for the Irish vote.
Macaulay, on 6th February, 1835, dealing with the proposal, thus described it:—
"This dual business was like the twins of Siam in some remarkable points, each man was the constant plague of the other, each was always in the other's way. They were more helpless than most other people because they had twice the number of hands. They were slower than other people because they had twice the number of legs. Sympathising only in evil, not tasting each other's pleasures, not supported by each other's ailments, but tormented by each other's infirmities, and certain to perish by each other's dissolution."
The attitude of English statesmen towards the Repeal Movement of O'Connell is thus summarised by Lecky:—
"Although the Repeal movement of O'Connell was much less dangerous than the present one, it is well known how it was regarded by the greatest English statesmen of every party. Few English public men have known Ireland better than the Duke of Wellington, and he wrote that Repeal must occasion the dissolution of the connection with Great Britain, and he predicted that its inevitable issue in Ireland would be a religious war. Sir R. Peel, who had served as Chief Secretary for Ireland, and was thoroughly acquainted with the
