The Sun.
London, England, 1837-11-27 00:00:00

IRELAND.

DUBLIN, Nov. 25.

EARL OF CLANCARTY.—We regret to announce the
death of the Earl of Clancarty, which took place in Kin•
negad yesterday.—Dublin Evening Post.
EJECTMENT OF TENANTRY.—We have already stated
that Lord Bandon has passed a Bill of starvation against
250 of his Catholic tenantry. Doubtless, it will be made
the subject of Parliamentary discussion. But what can
Parliament effect ? Lord Bandon will do what he likes
with his own. If there were a Poor Law, his Lordship,
and others like him, would hesitate.
We find also that the dislodgment system has begun with
great activity in Wexford.
It is continued in Carlow—it is beginning in Tippe-
rary—and ifs consequences are beginning, too, in that
county.
Property should be preserved certainly ; but the people
should be taken care of also.—lbid.
TIPPERARY.—OUTRAGES.—We regret, we need not say
it, to find that some parts of Tipperary have been dis-
graced by outrages of a very serious character. We have
already inserted enough to show that agrarian outrage,
of the most formidable kind, exists. Another instance we
give to-day.
When fiction bas been called in—when absolute lies
have been invented, with a view to blacken the character
of this county in particular—when every trifling row has
been magnified into an awful calamity, we doubted, we
confess, the most circumstantial statements of the enemy.
But we cannot close our eyes to statements made by Ma-
gistrates, nor to the resolutions which they have passed.
We question, however, the wisdom in calling for the Co-
ercion Act. We have no doubt that if the Stipendiary
Magistrate, who has the superintendence of the barony of
Clanwilliam, had manifested sufficient activity, with the
Constabulary under his orders, there would be no occasion
to call for the Coercion Act.—lbid.
DEATH OF PROVOST LLoyn.—We regret to announce
the death of Dr. Lloyd, Provost of Trinity College. It
was remarked by many persons who had occasion to wait
upon him yesterday, that his health and spirits were much
better than they had been for some time previous. He
had walked, at about twelve o'clock, to Sackville-street, to
vote for the admission of a child into the Deaf and Dumb
Institution at Claremont, and on his return home was
seized at his own door with illness, after which he never
spoke, and in two hours it terminated his valued life. Dr.
Sadlier will, probably, be the new Provost. The honour
could not be more worthily bestowed.--Ibid.

O'CONNELL AND SHARMAN CRAWFORD.
The following letter, which has been published in the
Freeman's Journal, is that to which allusion was made in
Saturday's Sun.
Sir,—The Dublin papers of yesterday contain a letter
which you have thought fit to address to me.
I would have deemed this letter undeserving of any no-

tice, if it were not from the apprehension that the public
might be deceived by the confident tone with which you
make false assertions, and wilful misrepresentations.
You extort from me this plain language. I have hitherto
commented, as I have a right to do, on your political con-
duct—without, I trust, ever departing from the proper de-
corum of language. Perhaps, Sir, I was too delicate ; but
I did not wish to act the part of a bully towards a man
bound as you declare yourself to be (and I do not blame
you for that obligation) by a vow registered in heaven. But
when you, Sir, from behind this holy protection, cast away
all the proprieties of language, and hurl against me insult,
untruths, and misrepresentations, you put yourself out of
the pale of all the common courtesies of society.
I told you in my last letter—" If you are able to upset
my facts (as contained in letter No. 1.), I shall retract my
conclusions, and apologize for having wronged you." Now,
what do you do ? The first nine paragraphs of your letter
are taken up with the imputation of having made a false
charge against you ; and yet in the tenth paragraph, with an
assurance unparalleled, you make an admission of the letter
and the facts on which my charge was founded.
You introduce this admission by saying, " you have dis-
covered one mode of escape"—imputing to me having
changed my ground, when you well know that it was the
gronnd I had taken from the first. Is this the candour
you have before now charged me with the want of ? Ido
not covet this kind of candour.

You falsely accuse me of shifting and varying my phraseo-
logy ; and yet you know that I quoted in my late reply to
you the actual words of my first letter, and pinned myself
to these words and statements.
You falsely say that I did not name a single appointment
made at your instance. You know that in my letter, No. 1,
I did name the persons whom you specially required to be
appointed to office, and the persons whom you specially
required to be dismissed from office, and who were appointed
and dismissed accordingly. I did not wish to repeat those
names in my last reply out of delicacy to those individuals,
and the same feeling operates on me upon this occasion ; but
the names can be found by a reference to the quotations
from your letter to Lord Duncannon contained in my first
letter, dated the 22d of August last.
You will there find that you distinctly set forth the ap-

pointment of a gentleman whom you named to the Attorney-
Generalship, as " the means of in the minds. of the
popular party in Ireland"in favour of the Government—and
you know that this gentleman was appointed to this office,
on the re-accession of the Melbourne ministry ; and yet,
knowing all this, you attempt to deceive the public, and to
raduce mc, by asserting that I had not specified one single
appointment made in Ireland at your instance.
Again, Sir, having proved these demands of yours, and
your conditional offer of adhesion, and the after compliance

I' with these demands by the Melbacrne Government, I next
proceeded to show the various oV6.rt acts committed on
your part, by supporting men and measures at complete
variance with your past (and even you* present) principles
and professions. Have you denied or ountraverted these
charges ?
You say there was no compact—why, then, was there
this apostacy ? Why did you support the Melbourne
Curfew Law Bill of 1835 ? Why did you vote .7gainst its
repeal in 1837 ? Why did you support the extension and
permanent establishment of what you formerly denominated
a gen d'arinerie police, in connexion with a stipendiary
magistracy, appointed by, and under the pay of the Crown,
and holding their situations at the pleasure of the Crown—
thus throwing aside all the acknowledged safeguards of
public liberty ? Why did you support Bills for the perpe-
tuation of the Tithe Composition, as applied to the pay-
ment of the Clergy of. the Established Church, and vote
against the motion for the total extinction of this Ecclesias-
tical payment ? I shall not procered farther with the ca-
talogue of your tergiversations—they are given at length in
my letters. I shall only remark, if you say you were not
bound by the trammels of any compact, you only prove
yourself a gratuitous traitor to the cause of civil and reli-
gions freedom. Place yourself now, Sir, on whichever born
of the dilemma you think proper to mount.
I now proceed to your charge of logical inaccuracy,
which I would not think it worth my while to answer, were
it not to exhibit to the public your wilful misrepresenta-
tions. If I even had been guilty.of this false logic, it
would have been only a proof of the weakness of your cause
to resort to this poor verbal criticism ; but in order to find
some means to attract public attention from the real merits
of the case, you have the meanness to make afalsc quota-
tion. Here is your statement :
" You allege that my public letter is my compact with the
Government.
" You afterwards say that letter is recorded against me ;
but you had before said that no compact was ever re-
corded between me and the Government.' "
•

Now what were my own words ?—" I do not mean to
assert that any
.formal compact was ever recorded between
you and the Ministry, but that a virtual compact exists,
founded on your proposition." * * " Your own offer
stands recorded against you."
The above are my words. You charge me with a lo-
gical contradiction, and, in order to make out your case,
you omit the words formal and virtual (as distinguishing
the different description of compacts), and you change other
words so as to confuse the meaning of my sentence, which,
when given in my own words, is perfectly correct. In what
terms of reprobation can such conduct be designated? If
this be sweet music in your ears, you are welcome to it.
You charge me, Sir, with " a me!ancholy superabundance
of words." I trust lam not guilty of that crime on the
present occasion, and, hoping that the few words I now
address to you are sufficiently to the point, I shall not
trouble you with any more at present, but I do not promise
to bid you farewell for ever.
I am the more anxious to abbreviate, as I have the hope
(and, indeed, the confidence) that my answer will receive
admission into any paper which has published or may pub-
lish your letter to me.—l am, Sir, &c., &c.,
WILLIAM SHARMAN CRAWFORD.
Dublin, Nov. 23, 1837.