The Sun.
London, England, 1838-08-23 00:00:00

plays, are somewhat too stale to be deemed dexterous ;
and had they not been addressed to a class whose
proverbial excitability always betrays their judg-
ment, those arts would doubtless have recoiled upon
their practitioner in torrents of unmitigated scorn.
After the usual introductory cant about his tender
affection for Ireland, increased of course by tempo-
rary absence, he endeavours to storm the sympathies and
pockets of his audience by reverting to his greener years of
" professional success"—by reminding them of his faithful
services as a valid title to corresponding wages—and then,
as if hopeful that his anticipated shortcomings in purse and
popularity might be partially averted by his knavish ad-
dress, he passes on, by a natural transition, from the griev-
ances of Dan to those of Dublin, whose abandonment by
the wealthier classes he ascribes to that " foul Union," for
the repeal of which, failing one solitary remaining experiment
under the present state of things, he proposes to organise his
millions into a vast parochial militia, who (albeit in a pacific
and constitutional manner) shall meet and petition,
or march and parade, till their national independence be
achieved. Part of this sickening balderdash was com-
mented on yesterday by an intelligent correspondent ; but
we venture to add, that the regret which O'Connell has
expressed on account of Dublin being deserted by people
of wealth is just a piece of elegiac finesse, conceived and
whined in his own most unctuous style. Well does he
know that if the wealth and intelligence of Ireland were ha-
bitually residing in Dublin, his own metropolitan domina-
tion, already tottering, would at once be brought to the
ground, never more to rise. Could the classes in question
(the vast majority being Protestants) be induced to brave
the risks of inhabiting the deserted mansions of that city,
they would presently extinguish the last spark of his
influence there, with such a successful concentration
of force as, when making a similar effort in their re-
spective counties, where they are necessarily weakened by
separation, they can now exert with only partial, though
increasing effect, by dint of Catholic co-operation. With
such a reinforcement, unless nefariously counteracted by
O'Connell's one-eyed Cyclops (the registration barristers)
who act the part of vote-smiths to that political Vulcan, the
Protestants of Dublin would soon convince the latter per-
sonage that, in spite of all his thunderbolts, his occupation
there was gone. Nobody has a keener perception of this
than himself. and accordingly, though pretending both to
bewail the absence of the wealthier classes from the

chief furnace of his machinations, and also to dc-

. .
nounce the systematic terrorism wherewith his myr-
midoms scare them away, his uniform policy all the while
is merely to increase and prolong what he professes to
lament, by the tortuous method of propagating principles
which are incompatible with Protestant safety. Mean-
while, the same absenteeism is found to be otherwise useful
to the learned Repealer, inasmuch as it furnishes 'aim with
a new sophism and slander for prosecuting his anti-Union
projects. The flippant way in which he attempted to as-
cribe the miseries of Ireland to the incorporation of her
Legislature with that of Britain, is no further worthy of
notice than as suppressing all allusion to his baleful self
as the irritating blister which keeps those miseries
running. On the question of repeal he has, during the last
five years, babbled a world of mischievous nonsense, but
always with the artful reservation that his proposed Irish
Parliament should remain part and parcel of her Ma-
jesty's realm. It appears, however, that this pampered
and dreaded traitor, to whom the Whigs have recently
offered office, is at length exhibiting an audacity cor-
responding to the indulgence he has heretofore experienced
at their hands. Formerly we may have had our suspicions
as to his real designs, but now he leaves us in no doubt
about them whatever. What he means by repeal (ac-
cording to his own broad insinuation) is actually this—
that Ireland shall be brought into the same relative posi-
tion towards England as Belgium bears to Holland.
" Never," says he, " did a repeal of the Union produce
such results, such prosperity, as in Belgium ; if the Bel-
gians wanted aid, how many thousands of Irishmen would
rally under their standard?" And if vice versa? Why,
the answer, to be sure, must be guessed. Now, if this be
not constructive treason of the most defined and atrocious
character, we know not what is. Heaven forbid that we
should do injustice in so serious a matter, even to
O'Connell ; and as to the charge of constructive
treason generally. it is one which in a free country ought
never to be entertained, except on the strongest and most
irrefragable grounds. The words we have quoted, if
uttered by an uninfluencial and heretofore peaceable sub-
ject, might be allowed to pass. Even if proclaimed on this
side of the Channel by an Englishman of some conse-
quence, not previously implicated in plans for the dismem-
berment of the monarchy, they might also be interpreted as
involving no high crime or misdemeanor against the Queen's
crown and dignity. But in the mouth of O'Connell,
who tell; us that he is the leader of seven millions of
Irishmen—who, night and day, is stirring up his country-
men to throw off the English yoke—and who asserts that
if they " once shout out repeal, the country would
be roused from one end to the other, and the willies
of Ireland would re-echo the cry of freedom"—in
the mouth of such a man, these treasonable words,
identifying Irish repeal with Belgian revolution, bear a sig-
nificancy which damns him. That his Whig connivers trill
quietly wink at such expressions, as in the case of Joseph
Hume, who recommended the Canadian discontents to
throw off the baleful domination of the mother country,
there seems too little reason to doubt. But unless they
deal impartial justice to this master rebel in another way
than by inviting him to the bench instead of the dock,
their prosecution of his journeymen, whether in Ireland or
in the colonies, must be _licer tyrannical caprice. Let
O'Connell be tolerated and Papineau outlawed, for one
and the same crime, and the Whigs will not only put a
premium upon a squirearchical rebellion, but outrage the
solemn sanctions of law, by reserving them for inferior
transgressors.—Times.
A great Ipswich meeting was assembled last week, to
unite in the popular demonstration which has just been ma-
nifested at Birmingham, Glasgow, Dublin, and the prin-
cipal districts of the country, in order to obtain Universal
Suffrage, Vote by Ballot, and Annual Parliaments. The
steam is getting up throughout the country ; and it is a
di egnoAic of' no trivial character that 89 towns have al-
ready appointed delegates to meet in a metropolitan national
convention. The exhibition of talent, sound thought, and
good sense, by the operatives and artisans assembled at Ips-
wich was highly honourable to them, and is replete with
admonitory intimations to the exclusive caste who detract
from bumble merit—who mock or thwart the progress of
mind—who deny equality of political rights, and think
to retain such men as " hewers of woad and drawers
of water" to the end of their career. Nor still the
alarmist cry of " Wolf! wolf!" and of " Revolution !"
be of any service in the midst of this great popular demon-
stration as it has been on former occasions, when less poli-
tical knowledge was diffused throughout society. No body
of men are more interested in preserving social tranquillity
than the operative class—inasmuch as the pie fits of their
useful labour depend upon the undisturbed exertion of their
daily industry. At the Ipswich meeting Mr. Macpherson,
in proposing a resolution for Universal Suffrage, made the
following emphatic and eloquent announcement, which we
extract from the ample report of the Essex Times :
" What arc the Working Men's Associations denominated,
for endeavouring to secure their rights and liberties? De-
structionists—cut-throats, all that is vile, and all that is abo-
minable in the eyes of God and man 1 But we cast back
these foul slanders on those who say so with contempt, and
tell them we are the lovers and friends of our kind. We tell
them we arc not for war; we are for peace. We want to
see the sword beaten into a ploughshare. We want to see the
man of property with that property protected, and we want to
see the poor man protected in his poverty, eating his bread in
happiness earned by the sweat of his brow. To those who
would say that the working men are desirous for a scramble,
and to upset the property of this country and her happiness,
we say we disclaim it, and we cast back the insinuation with
scorn. We are not destructives of good—we are destructives
of evil."
This is a full and satisfactory reply to the canting
calumny
in daily and hackneyed use
by
the Conservatives,
that all those who want to cut down the abuses which they
havether
very
engendered—on s
identifiedwhich
afatten—and
~ pe
st
rztc
twi
ui telsv, whichNv e
differ with the disclaiming
Tories—we reject notg
imputation of Reformers being
the
bseitneitaleg. on one point—as to the
ructives made by the
sense to the " soft impeachment." swC.'t eertpalienalyd,gituilitsythine eoube-
ject of real Reformers to destroy all the abuses in Church
and State. The people desire to destroyh all the vicious
implements which bad Governments
igahvteasactchuemsuulrateeodn.
They are "Destructives" in the same l
is, who destroys the cancer by going to its roots with his
scalpel, when it would otherwise destroy the ho
are D. estructivcs in the same sense as constables, justices,
They
magistrates, and juries are, when they break up,jansdiedees,
livestroyb
ythe l
uhaunts
andands machinationsend them
o theof bad
treadmill,characters, whoth-
debtors' door. But as regards the meaning which the
Conservatives attach to the word " Destructive," viz.,
1 that
in
the Reformers
ißenfolpdrmuearnstwawnats tnoedveesrtrtohyropwronpeortuyt—ban imputa-
tiontcatching at any obsolete prejudice to save themselves apfarormy
destruction. The avowed leaders of Reform arye s u
eo
smt
re tsc .
-f '
the richest men in the country, and to charge as D
lives men whose fortune is reckoned by millions,
voke a laugh from every man of common sense. Why
should they destroy their own property? Why, indeed,
should the working classes, who have less money than
others, be therefore more :destructive? A small
pro-
perty to a man who has but little is as important
and as dear to him eh the largest property is to
the wealthiest individual in the country. Are not the
hundreds possessed by the individual—who has no more
to call his own—as dear to him as the thousands which
the industry or luck of an aristocrat's ancestors—hot ids
own—produced for his fortunate descendant ? In fact, the
less a man has the more necessary is it for him to enjoy the