The Sun.
London, England, 1836-09-05 00:00:00

21-A
THE SUN, LONDOIA

MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 5, 1836.

JUSTICE TO IRELAND"-AND TO

ENGLAND.

(From the Spectator.)
Darrynane Abbey, Aug. 27.
SlR—The Spectator does " penetrate to Darrynane ;"
else I should be deprived of much entertainment and in-
struction also, and of the opportunity of setting myself right
with you and your readers.
The substantial point in difference between us is this—
I assert that the majority of the English nation are indif-
ferent, or worse, hostile, to the claim of the people of Ire-
land to " justice." I assert that indifference, or rather that
hostility.
This you deny. I wish you would convince me that you
are right in so denying ; but you content yourself with as-
sailing my reasons. And for this purpose you have one
great advantage over me, resulting from a preposterous re-
port of a speech of mine made in Dublin. The species of
argument given in that report is indeed absurd, but absurd
to the very last point of absurdity. My vanity is much
piqued that any person who knew me for an hour should
bring himself to believe me capable of testing public opinion
by the conduct of the Chandos voters. In sober sadness,
I will say that I am not capable of any such nonsense.
The substance of what I said on the occasion was just
this—,-which is my present opinion also—•" That I would
concede, for argument sake, that a numerical majority of
all the people of England were favourable to doing justice
to Ireland ; yet that the disposition of the English nation
towards Ireland was best evinced by the class ofvoters'—
that class constituted the portion of the English people
most if not solely efficient for political purposes. I insisted
that it was by Me class of voters alone that the opinion of
England could be known with any certainty. It was true
that such class included the Chandos voters, who in general
had not the power to express their own sentiments, and
showed only those of their landlords—so far the experiment
was not complete—but whatever defect existed in the ex-
periment as to the counties, was compensated for by the
town of Newcastle, when the only difference between the
two candidates was that which touched the Government of
Ireland. 'The enemy to Ireland was elected, and the friend
to Ireland rejected."
I therefore said, " that if it were asserted to me that
the people of England are favourable to the Irish, my an-
swer would be in one word, Newcastle."

You say this would be a foolish answer. My reply is,
that it would be quite a rational answer.
As far as mere assertion we are upon an equality. But
you proceed to reasoning. You say Blacket was rejected
by the Newcastle electors because he was a mere Whig—
that he did not go far enough for the Reformers of New-
castle, who therefore rejected him. You also allege that if
a Radical Reformer had stood, the result would have been
his return to Parliament.

According to you, the Reformers of Newcastle rejected
Blacket because he was a Whig, whereas they would have
elected him had he been a thorough Reformer.
Patience, my good Sir, patience—you go too far. Re-
collect that Newcastle did not merely and singly reject
Blacket for not being Reformer enough, but it elected
Hodgson, who is no Reformer at all.

If the Newcastle men acted upon your principles, and re-
jected a mere Whig, why, what confounded blockheads
must they be to elect an unequivocal Tory !
Really, with all your talent, you look only at one side
of the question. You see Blacket rejected, and you ex-
claim—" Mighty well ! Out with him! He is not Re-
former enough. Out with him ! The mere Whig!"
You forget in your joy at the blow given to the Whigs,
that there is a stronger blow given to the cause of Reform
by the election of a stark staring Tory.
No ; the truth is, that the experiment at Newcastle was
complete. There was but one essential difference between
Hodgson and racket, only one that related to Ireland.
Blacket was fir the Ministry, who are tranquillizing Ire-
land by some practical justice ; he was tbr the appropria-
tion clause ; he was fur Municipal Reform in Ireland.
Hodgson, on the contrary, was against that Ministry ;
against the appropriation clause ; against Corporate Reform
in Ireland.

It was impossible to bring before the minds of English-
men in a more simple and single shape the question of
" good government for Ireland." There was no other
question at that election. Both candidates rejected Ballot
and short Parliaments, and extension or universality of
suffrage. The Irish question was the only question ; the
only difference between them.
How can you, then, shrink from my conclusion, that the
result proves the electors of Newcastle to be either indferent
or hostile to the rights of the Irish people
You suggest that the majority was divided by the Ra-
dicals, who would have elected Colonel Napier—and in
truth they could not have found a better man ; or Sharman
Crawford, who is introduced by you I do not distinctly know
why—but be it so : then it was Rldical Reformers who
turned the scale. Alas, for poor Ireland, when her friend
was rejected, and her avowed enemy returned, not by
Tories or neutral politicians, but by Radicals!
Thus you strengthen my argument, instead of weaken-
ing it : and you give me double cause of regret—first, be-
cause you confirm my impression of English hostility to
Ireland ; and secondly, because, instead of rousine, English
honesty to bestir itself for Ireland, you shift andt palliate
the nature of the crime committed—and, alas, renewable
—by the English constituencies.

You say it was English sympathy that secured for Ire-
land emancipation. I should be delighted to believe it ;
but I cannot, because I know directly the reverse to be the
fact. An immense majority of the English were violently
hostile to that measure. Only look at the list of petitions
in the year 1829 ; and recollecting that the Government
party, as well as all the sections of Liberals, were opposed
to adverse petitions, it will, I think, convince you that we
owe nothing to an English majority—though we owe much
to individual English advocates—for that emancipation,
which, after all, was mainly achieved by ourselves. Her
" hereditary bondsmen" did it, and here I am who led
them on.

It is to the last degree discreditable to the English na-
tion to be indifferent to the rights of the Irish people. In
the first place, it proves a want of gratitude ; secondly, it
proves a want of due attention to their own liberties, be-
cause the popular party in Ireland are active and ready
partisans of British freedom ; thirdly, it proves great igno-
rance of the best interests of Great Britain, because, if the
Irish people were fairly and justly treated, they would be
the best consumers with whom the British manufac-
turers could deal in peace, and in war they would be the
best allies Britain could have—whereas, whilst the Irish
people experience injustice, their consequent poverty un-
favourably affects British manufactures and commerce in
times of peace, and as to war—Great Britain can never
again attempt to go to war whilst Ireland has just cause
of disaffection.

Upon these points we agree, and our policy aims at the
same objects. But you think you will drive the Whig
Ministry into a course of more active exertion for mea-
sures of amelioration. Ido much fear you will fail. Lord
Melbourne and his Cabinet seem not to understand their
own position. They have the Court party hostile to them
to the last degree, because in that party centres the
worst practical details of Toryism. They have the Lords,
led on by the most base of mankind, sustained by the ,
most selfish of the human race, and encouraged by the
least chivalrous but the most daring of successful adven-
turers—they have such a Hnuse of Lords to contend with.
It is true, they might have the people, the irresistible peo-
ple with them—but they neglect the people—they foolishly
neglect the people, and more foolishly endeavour to conci-
liate enemies who have neither the inclination nor even
the capability of being conciliated.
It is, I admit, a most melancholy thing to find the Whig
Ministry in such a position. They have the means within
their reach to be all-powerful. They have only to throw
themselves on the people—to act for the people, with the
people, and in aid of the exertions of the people.
What a glorious career lies before Lord Melbourne and
his colleagues, if they do but possess energy and integrity
adequate to the lofty destiny that awaits them ! They
may, if they please, add more than one-third to the strength
and resources of the empire. They may conciliate Ireland,
and become the first of benefactors to Great Britain. See
how successful is Lord Mulgrave's experiment—consistik
of nothing but the working out of common sense and
common honesty Yes, but it is a vigorous exhibition of
common sense—it is a manly, display of common honesty !
The Melbourne Administration may give to the British
Crown seven millions, of friends and supporters, they may
confer permanent prosperity on those seven millions of
human beings, and on their accumulating prosperity.
No Ministry ever had so glorious a career before them.
Ireland, after more than six centuries of unmitigated op-
pression, is ready for conciliation—for union—for identifica-
tion with Britain. The first dawn of impartiality is the
first exhibition of dutiful tranquillity. The great national
question can, nay, MUST now be decided—Are the Irish
people to be fellow-subjects ;or are they to be—l will write
it--ENEMIES ?

Lord Melbourne may blot out the enmity for ever—he
may make the Irish willing and most useful subjects. But
for this purpose—and I joy that it should be soL—he must
satisfy the rational portion of the English people. He
must content the English and Scotch Dissenters—they ask
only for "justice? He must become the advocate of an
increased and extended franchise. He must consent to
shorten the duration of Parliament. He must not shrink
from the ballot. Above all, he must prepare for the
conflict with the Lords. The contest has begun by and
from the Lords. Hitherto the Ministry and the Com-
mons have not gone beyond—even if they have reached
—mere passive resistance. The state of active hostility
must commence. It will commence, either under Mi-
nisterial auspices or without the countenance of Minis-
ters. One way or the other, the fight must be carried

on. The Lords have already begun on their part. If the
Ministry.deseri the people in this crisis, revolutionary dan-
zers will necessarily occur—nay, a violent revolution is,
in my opinion, inevitable. The Lords will yield only to a
defeat. The people cannot much longer endure aristo-
cratic despotism. A violent overthrow of our present
institutions must be the result of the present posture of
affairs, unless .the " Reform of the Lords" becomes the
watchword of the Ministerial party. If Lord Melbourne
will but conduct and manage that necessary organic change
—if he will combine in his own person the popular leader
with the King's Minister—the transition will be easy and
safe, and secure from social change or individual misery.
His duty to his King and to his country equally demand,
not that he should ride " on the political whirlwind and
direct the storm," but that he should prevent every such
whirlwind, and render such a storm unnecessary, and there-
fore impossible.
The Ministry of Lord Melbourne owe a debt of grati-
tude to the Irish. Let them enable themselves to pay that
debt, by joining now heart and hand with the rational Re-
formers of England. The Peers—the Peers have shaken
the foundation of the Throne—they have actually made
the crown totter on the royal head !—and at this moment
the Monarchy is not safe, because the Lords are as selfishly
malevolent towards the people as they are blindly confi-
dent in their supposed strength and stability. Unless
the aristocracy of the peerage be curbed and reformed,
they will involve the Monarchy in one common ruin with
themselves.

In this, not coming, but existing struggle, Lord Mel-
bourne's Cabinet can reckon on the zealous, the ardent,
and the efficient support of the Irish people and of their
representatives. We all feel deeply indebted to the pre-
sent Ministry. It is the best—the only good Adminis-
tration for Ireland that ever existed. If we go to the
very verge of propriety in support of the present Ministers,
their conduct in Ireland is our excuse—ay, and our justi-
fication. It cannot be denied that Lord Mulgrave's go-
vernment of Ireland has been as nearly perfect as the
nature of man, and, above all, as the nature of our insti-
tutions, could possibly admit. The only thing the Irish
people desire is, that the law would enable Lord Mulgrave
to do all the good he wishes. Ireland would be for ever
tranquil
sand prosperous if the principle of Lord Mulgrave's
government was transferred to the Statute-book, and that
the law enforced those just measures which he so anxiously
endeavours to introduce.

The greatest curse that could be inflicted on Ireland
would be a return of the Tories to power. I do verily
believe, that such return would be the greatest calamity
the English people and the English Monarch could sustain.
I have wandered from my subject. You will pardon
me. You see we agree in essentials. The Ministry must
POPULARIZE themselves in England—or Great Britain is
deeply injured, and Ireland totally ruined for a century.
I have the honour to be, Sir, your obedient servant,
DANIEL O'CONNELL.