The Sun.
London, England, 1837-08-28 00:00:00

have just closed, while it shows how slanderous is the
imputation that he is actuated by a vulgar personal
ambition, confers upon the whole Liberal party in both
countries, and not the least upon those who entertain
the most moderate views, obligations which it would
be equally unwise and base to forget, even if it were
perfectly safe to do so.—Morning Chronicle.
We have said, and we adhere to it, and shall con-
tinue, even at the hazard of fatiguing the fastidious,
still to say it, because it is the most material of all
things to be said and repeated and reiter;ted, that the
band of between twenty and thirty Irish Members re-
lied on by Ministers as their majority, and drawn up
in that character, to arbitrate the destinies of this em-
pire in the House of Commons, are the nominees of
one man, and that man Mr. O'Connell. The organs
of the Ministry encounter our argument, in the first
place, by misrepresenting our assertion. " The
writers on the Conservative side," say they, "in sur-
veying the Irish elections, treat all the Liberal Mem-
bers as the nominees of O'Connell : we have shown
the ludicrous absurdity of this bold fiction, in describ-
ing who and what the new Members are." This fic-
tion is indeed sufficiently absurd, of treating all the 72
Liberal Members for Ireland as the Agitator's nomi-
nees ; but it is no absurdity of ours. We certainly think
it quite enough, that of the 72 he is able to nominate
about half ; his nomination of the whole has not yet,
as far as we know, been conceived, unless perhaps by
his own irregular ambition. But one-half, or even
one-third, of the 72, are as many as our argument re-
quires. The remainder may be as independent of him
as the Ministers would wish that themselves could
afford to be, and still our assertion stands unshaken,
that if mere numbers are to arbitrate the destinies of
this empire in the House of Commons, the arbitration
rests with four-and-twenty of the nominees of Mr.
O'Connell. The independent gentlemen of the new
Whig birth in Ireland may be reckoned, if you will,
for the purpose of our argument, as paired against an
equal number of the independent Conservative Mem-
bers : what we heie have to do with is the difference,
or excess, of the whole Ministerial majority, over
the whole Conservative minority : and this difference
or excess consists of the twenty-four nominees.
In the assertion that the Conservatives " describe
the entire majority of Irish representatives as the
nominees of Mr. O'Connell," the word " majority"
is rather ambiguously used. It may mean the entire
72 Irish Ministerialists, or it may mean the entire ba-
lance of 40 by which the 72 Irish Ministerialists out-
number the 32 Irish Constitutional Members. Which-
ever be the meaning, we have never said anything
which can bear the construction imputed. We have
never said the 72 were all of them Mr. O'Connell's
nominees ; we have not even said, though we should
not have been very far from the truth if we had said,
that the, forty are, all of them, the nominees of Mr.
O'Connell ; but that which we have said, and shall
continue to enforce, is, that the 23, or, if you will, the
24, Irish Ministerialists, who remain when the other
317 Ministerialists have been balanced against the 317
Conservatives, are 24 of Mr. O'Connell's nominees,
vulgarly called his Tail. Perhaps, from the following
list of 35, some of our readers may like to select the
specific twenty-four for themselves:—
Athlone
Carlow (County) V_igors
Clare

O'Brien
Macnamara

Cork (County)
Cork (City)
Dublin (City)...
Hutton
Dundalk 4l?eddington
Ennis ,-Bridgernan
Galway (County) *Bodkin
Galway (Town) *Blake
Kerry
Kilkenny (County).. .....

'Bryan
Kilkenny (Town)
King's County *Fitzsimon
Kicsale
Limerick ( cown)...
"Roche
.......
*BtAlcw
Brabazon, Sir W.
*Browne
Meath '`M. O'Connell
New Ross
Sligo (T0wn)........ ..... , Somers
Tipperary *Shed
Cave

Louth .

Mayo .

Waterford (County) Fl'o;er
Waterford (Town)...
Wyse
We5tmeath........... 'Nagle, Sir R.
Wexford (County)... *Maher
* Power

In the foregoing list we have not included Mr.
Barry, whose Parliamentary relation to Mr. O'Con-
nell, though generally assumed, is perhaps doubtful,
and we have omitted Mr. Lynch, though uniformly
acting with the O'Connell section, because he may be
fairly considered as owing his seat less to the leader's
nomination than to his own personal character and
connexion. If we had included these two gentlemen,
the number of Roman Catholic members in the list
(who are distinguished by an asterisk against each
name) would have amounted to twenty-six ; at pre-
sent it stands at only twenty-four, the precise num-
ber of the Ministerialist majority in the present Par-
liament. According to the list, therefore, as it stands,
we have 35 nominees of Mr. O'Connell, of whom a

number equal to the twenty:four are Roman Catholics.
Now, to preclude our opponents from all excuse or
pretence for mistaking our meaning, which they would
do if they could, we tell them expressly what we
mean by the word " nominee." We mean by it, a
Member of Parliament, elected on the recommendation
of some powerful or influential person, against whom,
or without whem, he could not have offered himself,
and to whose party he is understood as being so at-
tached, that he cannot oppose it by a vote on any
trying question without being bound in point of ho-
nour to vacate his seat. This was the sense in which
Members of Parliament were called nominees before
the Reform Bill, and to terminate such nominations
was among the mai❑ objects for which that Bill was
passed. The way in which it is attempted to refute
our computation is a bold, but by no means a novel,
one. The Ministerial paper already quoted produces
the names of eleven members who have never been de-
signated as the Agitator's nominees, " describes who
and what they are," and then defies us to show that
he has nominated them. It might indeed have been
suspected that in the county of Dublin, where Mr.
O'Connell's relative, Mr. Fitzsimon, makes way for
Lord Brabazon, Mr. O'Connell's influence had some-
thing ;to do with the arrangement, and peradventure
the same suspicion might attach to the retirement of
Mr. J. O'Connell from Youghal, to provide a seat for
Mr. Howard ; nor is it impossible, when we consider
the connexion of the great leader with the county of
Carlow, where there has been so much which he

"---fixit pret.io atque refixit "
that Mr. Yates may be indebted for some of his good
fortune there to an understanding with the same patron.
But they are not, nor is Mr. Maule, the member for
Carlow town, included in our list of Mr. O'Connell's
nominees. Mr. O'Callaghan may, and we believe
does, derive his election for Dungarvan from the more
elevating influence of an English nobleman, and the
remaining six are probably returned rather by the ge-
neral influence of the priesthood connected with Mr.
O'Connell than by the specific nomination of Mr.
O'Connell himself. But, be it as it may, our list of
his 35 nominees does not include any one of the 11.
Now, let it be supposed, as we doubt not it will be
asserted, that even among the 35 who are enumerated
in our list, there are some who cannot properly be
ranked as the nominees of the one great borough-
monger. We believe there are none so enumerated
who are not fully entitled to their places there ; but we
can afford to make our adversaries a present of another
11, whom they shall deduct from the 35, and still
there will remain 24 nominees of Mr. O'Connell, the
precise majority for Ministers in the Imperial House
of Commons. Now, let us not be misrepresented.
We are not here urging it as a reproach against any
gentlemzn whose opinions conscientiously coincide
with Mr. O'Connell's, that he profits by the aid of that
powerful person to obtain access to Parliament, though
we can conceive that opinions may differ on this point ;
much less do we insinuate, in the most distant way,
that it is a reproach to any man to be a believer in the
Roman Catholic faith. But we do say, that with the
opinions which we Protestants entertain of the views
of the Catholics upon our own Church and its endow-

I merits, we have a right to challenge such jurors asl
they are, not because we hold them incapable of form-
ing an honest judgment, but because we feel that on
their premises their honest judgment is and must be '
against the Protestant Constitution of our Crown,
country, and Church. If, after pairing off the 317
Ministerial against the 317 Conservative Members,
the 24 who remat are Catholics, or even Protestants,
who go all lengths with Catholics, the result to this
Protestant nation is practically very much the same as
it would be if the 317 on each side had never been
elected at all, and the whole House of Commons con-
sisted of the 24. Let the Protestant people of Great
Britain ask themselves with what feelings they would
regard a House of Commons of which the whole
should be Roman Catholics, though not nominees of
one man. Then, would it mend the matter to know
that one man had nominated the whole ? The power,
be it always considered is in the casting voice ; and that
voice is now the voice of Mr. O'Connell. It is idle to tell
us that by magnifying his power we aggravate his mis-
chief. Not, we answer, if the country, be true to it-
self. The majority returned .to the House of Com-
mons by Great Britain, and the concurrent majority of
the House of Peers, will yet be too much for Mr.
O'Connell's majority of 24 from Ireland.— Times.
There is no party in the State who declaim so vio-
lently, and manifest such a furious zeal in behalf of
" our glorious Constitution" as the Tories. Under
their new-fangled title of " Conservatives," they claim
the right of its guardianship as prescriptively and pe-
culiarly their own ; and yet not the most violent Re-
publican, either in profession or practice, in theory or
policy, commits, nor proposes to commit, such gross
outrages on the spirit and letter of this most perfect
and most excellent fabrication, as is daily implied or
recommended in the organs of those blusterers for the
preservation of existing institutions in the plenary per-
fection of their abuses. Without attempting to define
or discuss the precise limits which form the demar-
cation between " constitutional" and " unconstitu-
tional," as the current jargon terms it—or expatiating
upon the flagrant infraction of those limits, whatever
their extent, so licentiously indulged in during the
recent elections—we shall for the present confine our-
selves to a few observations on the mode in which
the Tories propose to counteract the preponderance
which—notwithstanding all their misrepresentation,
falsehood, bribery, intimidation, and corruption—
the Electoral body of the United Kingdom have
placed against them in the House of Commons.
First—it is argued that, as the English Counties
prostrated to Tory domination, have returned a majo-
rity of factious representatives to the Legislative Coun-
cil of the nation, therefore the Members so elected
should have a paramount voice to those representing
cities and boroughs, wherein undue appliances were
less potential, and where, therefore, the opinions of the
representatives are more in unison with the popular
sentiment. Next, as more than two-thirds of the re-
presentatives of Ireland are favourable to the claims of
justice and the people, it is proposed to deprive them
of their fair share of influence in the House of Coin-
:ll°ns, on the ground of their being the mere nominees
of Mr. O'Connell, elected by " Aliens," " Infidels,"
and " Priest-ridden Papists ; ' at best but demi-civi-
lised savages, incapable of discriminating between
right and wrong. In plain and intelligible language,
the drift of the Tories is to deprive the cities and
boroughs of Great Britain of all practical representa-
tion, and bind the country neck and heels to the clue, '
riot-wheels of the Aristocracy. This is the purpose
avowed in the claim of pre-eminence for the county
representatives. Such also is the object of de-
preciating the value of the Irish representatives,
though the more direct and natural inference to
be drawn from the Tory mode of reasoning would
be, that the repeal of the Union offered in this re-
gard the most easy and accurate mode of adjusting
the representation. No opinion can be more fallacious
than the supposition that the landed proprietors have
a greater interest in the prosperity of the country than
those engaged in commerce. It is stupidly asserted,
that being fixed as it were to the soil, they cannot, like
the merchant or trader, take their property with them
to another country, and, therefore, the permanent wel-
fare of the country inwit be to them an object of para-
mount solicitude. But what class is it that gives worth
to the possessions of the landed proprietor ? Whose
labour enriches the soil, and de velopes its powers of
production ? Is it the aristocracy who toil and sweat
in extracting the riches of the earth, or in multiply-
ing to an incalculable extent, by means of continu-
ous industry, care, and ingenuity, the value of the
native original product ? No, the vile task of making
the fruits of the earth available, is left to the con-
temned industrial class, who are not esteemed worthy
of a voice in the Legislature. True, the owner of the
land cannot transport his acres to other shores ; but he
can transport himself, and spend in other countries the
wealth realised by the exertions of others at home.
Yet those who give value to the soil, those whose
exertions enrich themselves and their country at the
same time, are to be left unrepresented, while the land-
lord's voice, or that of his nominee, is alone to be
heard in the Senate-house. But what is to become
of those " grand Conservative operatives" of whom
the Tories some time since made such a magnificent
display ? Are they to be thrown overboard? Are
they to be swamped with the boroughs which they
have failed to make subservient to Tory machinations?
It was certainly a grand discovery, and one which
could have resulted only from unparalleled daring, to
find out that the landed proprietors have a greater stake
in the country, and consequently a greater right to the
supreme controul of its affairs, than those whose in-
...

dustry and enterprise are the pillars of its greatness.
This is constitutional doctrine with a vengeance.
What will the " grand Conservative operatives' say
to it? We can easily fancy the reply which the
" Aliens" would give to the disqualification urged against
them. Paddy might say to his revilers, " Why thin
if we be unfit to sit in the same House with you, of
course you can have no objection to give us the re-
pale."—Morning Advertiser.
We have lately received several communications on

that important subject, " imprisonment for debt,"
and the tone of those letters is invariably averse to that
practice, as now in operation amongst us. Whether
such a powers hould be permitted to exist amongst a
free people, in a Christian land, appears to us, we con-
fess, very questionable, as there cannot be a doubt
that the practice as well as the theory are diametri-
cally opposed to the essential principles of our holy
religion, as well as to the natural and inalienable rights
of mankind, conferred upon every human being at its
birth, by the Creator himself ; and this great prin-
ciple, and the denomination of " the liberty of the
subject," is one of the first principles secured by " the
great charter." But, with the highest respect for this
great and indefeasible right, we cannot acknowledge
that there is in it any recognition of the propriety of
allowing persons to get the property of others into
their possession, and not to be compellable to make
proper restitution. Magna Charta does not anywhere
sanction any such anarchical practices ; but whether the
right which, for a long time, has legally existed in
Britain of incarcerating the body of a debtor was con-
templated by that charter of British liberties, we think
is not only doubtful, but impossible, for this simple
reason—that it would quite stultify the very principal
objects intended by that noble charter. Thes• were
chiefly that all men should be equal in the legal sense of
that term ; that persons, if accused, should be tried by
their equals, per pares ; and that punishment, when
awarded, should not he excessive, but in proportion to
the offence committed. Yet imprisonment for debt is
an infliction far more grievous and heavy than is gene-
rally visited upon ordinary felonies. The term of im-
prisonment in the latter class of offences is limited ; but
a debtor, whom the laws of England do not consider
as a criminal, as our readers will please to remark—a
mere and perhaps very honest debtor—is shut up for
years, perhaps expires in a gaol, unless he can propitiate
some ruthless or perhaps revengeful creditor, and yet
the laws of Britain sanction this monstrous anomaly.
We should think that the regular way of going to work
would be, first to make it a criminal act for a man to

get into debt, and then on conviction to treat the party
as a convicted felon. This simple process of legisla-
tion would be clearly comprehended by every one, and
would no doubt to a very great extent diminish the
number of creditors, as well as debtors, which would
be quite as great a disappointment to the former as to
the latter class ; for, though it must be admitted that