The Sun.
London, England, 1836-07-14 00:00:00

----
We have elsewhere given a report of the proceed-
ings at a meeting held yesterday at the Crown and
Anchor Tavern, to petition . Parliament on the subject
of the treatment of Dr. Beaumont. We confess we
could-have wished that Mr. O'Connell, who stated the
case of Dr. Beaumont very forcibly, had spoken with
more respect of the Head of the trench Government.
Certain we are that if it be wished to effect the libera-
tion of Dr. Beaumont through the representations of
the English Government, the application of hard words
to the King of the French will not tend to promote
that object. The extent to which the Press of one
country should go in discussing the conduct of the
Government of another, is always a matter of some de-
licacy. We would not deny to oppressed foreigners
the sympathy with their wrongs which they may ob-
tain by an appeal to the world through the columns of
the English Press ; but we question whether it be al-
lowable to use the English Press as an instrument for
the purpose of exciting in any people dissatisfaction
with . , their Government. We object, therefore,,
to the use of the words " tyrant on the throne,
and " tyrant Monarch of France " by Mr. O'Con-
nell.
The French are a great and enlightened
nation, and it is for them to decide on the
conduct of their Monarch. Indeed, we question whe-
ther they may not feel the application of such lan-
guage to their King an insult to themselves, as imply-
ing in them a subserviency to misgovernment which
would not be manifested by another people under si-
,
1 'filar circumstances. With respect to the case of Dr.
Arthur James Beaumont, it does certainly seem that
i
I he has been very harshly treated. It is no doubt true
that a foreigner is subject to the laws of the country
i 4 which he resides ; but even this doctrine must be
received with some exceptions, for the French Govern-
,
inent demanded satisfaction from Don Miguel for the
treatment experienced by French subjects in Portugal,
'though harsh, was yet in accordance with the
'4"
ef that country, and on the refusal of satisfaction
force was resorteato. The Frenchmen were sentenced
by, Portuguese tribunals, just as Dr. Beaumont has
been sentenced by a French tribunal. Were a French-
'llan to have been tried in England on a charge similar
to that preferred against Dr. Beaumont, his fate would
I 1
no doubt have been very different. We think the
jchief stress ought to be laid on the substantial in-
ustice of the sentence against Dr. Beaumont, for we
doubt whether there is much force in the point la-
boured by Mr. O'Connell with great ingenuity, that
lie was tried under a law which had no existence when
~ he was committed to prison. It is true that power was
given to the Peers to try Dr. Beaumont, when he was
already
in prison ; but have not offenders been fre -
qnently tried in this and every other country by Courts
which had no existence when the offence was commit-
ted ?
It would not be a good objection to the com-
petency of the the Act of Central Criminal Court, to say that
Parliament constituting it was passed sub-
sequent to the act for which an individual was placed
°" his trial. The treatment of Dr. Beaumont is sub-
stantially at variance with the principles of justice,
and we cannot be help thinking, therefore, that if his case
properly represented, he will obtain his liberation.
The instance of Turkey does not apply, 'because, by
express treaty with that power, English are -
empted from the Turkish
tribunals.—Moritme.n Citron A letter published in the Irish Papers explains why
the name of Mr. Sharman Crawford did not appear in
thet majority against Lord Mahon's amendment upon
e Appropriation Clause in the Irish Tithe Bill. We
have always given Mr. S. Crawford credit for upright
fg, and honourable, patriotic purpose ; but in the
t•
I Present instance he has put it out of our power to con-
-1 1 cede to him the character of prudence or good sense.
It is possible that his constituents may be satisfied
with his absence from the division on Lord Mahon's
amendment, and with his declared reasons for absent-
ing himself from his place—but of this we are quite
,sure, that out of Dundalk there is not to be found a
"zen of sensible Reformers who will acquiesce in the
IT !eine or concur in the matter of the Hon. Gentleman's
letter to the " Liberal Constituency" of that borough.
Allowing Mr. Sharman Crawford to be actuated, as
zwe.belleve he is, by the sincerest love of country,
the most anxious wish to improve the moral
he
ee yi;hysical condition of the Irish people, we
at a 1
- loss to understand upon what plea
egotis7ticaaj lit"- t
corn ) '9
charge—as .he
.does. by an
~.kr. OConnell rast and an offensive implication—
menibers wt. and the rest
.of the Liberal Irish.
• in question"°Wivtohted in the majority on the occasion
constituents'degrading themselves and their
call the by sanctioning what he is pleased to
ClUdin" the pitiful offer"—that is, the Tithe Bill, in-
th ;itl'i
at, Appropriation Clause. Are we to believe
l'
sentatives one exception, the Irish Liberal Repre-
are dolts and betrayers ?—Or does Mr. S.
C raw
for dolts
•
„s ro imagine that he alone is " wisest, virtuousest,
Prettygicreetest, best ?" Now, in our opinion, and we are
, sure this opinion is shared by 19 out of 20 of
ll Reformers of the United Kingdom, the wisest and
0f best course to be pursued, in reference to the question
to tithes in Ireland, is 'to adapt our proceedings
toocircumstances, and not to spurn a moderate good,
instant we cannot, unfortunately, achieve in an
_ ant
üblic, are
all the advantages to which we, the
entitled. The Member for Dundalk
that
art•ully ;
impressed with the conviction—that even
::,11,_ measure
conditions,"
insulting
which he repudiates as a " pitiful
as respects its amount and its
the notions is still too large—too good—to meet
_ notions
of the Tory Peers, who constitute
4,e perverse and bigotted majority in one of our
thatl gtslve assemblies. He must also know,
ic. io, this
country there is much diversity of
in favour
upon this question, and that the prejudice
_na,tyour of that monstrouso anomaly, the Ecclesiasti-
iieolt Establishment dlreland—an anomaly avowed and
in defended by Lord Mahon himself while perform-
,log the office of Tory mouth-piece—is in England by
means inconsiderable, though exceedingly inconsi-
(ler
.iora.te
: That such should be the fact is lamentable—
,.itt is matter for serious regret to observe in the He-
yre__4,l a Chamber a blind determination to adhere to
4_,na t 9 uphold a gigantic evil, the parent of countless
abuses and mischiefs, which has hitherto marred the
grs owth of Protestantism and checked the progress of
ocial improvement in . Ireland, and will in the end
odious
the very name of the Church of England
thous in the sister countr
; and it is equally to
Ile regretted, that upon his point the titled con-
servators of abuse have with them no insignificant
Portion of British sympathy
--a matter of
r.
atter fact, to
.11 Mr. O'Connell claims the attention of his
:1_„1-intrymen in his very able second letter to the people
tutu, Ireland. This, then, being the case, the great
bulk of the Hereditary Legislators having a selfish
_,',"d a factious interest in the Having
of the c-
t',l6siautical Establishment in its pernicious entirety, and
:lie People of England not being yet all, or nearly
greatsufficiendy alive to their own interests and to the
Ads'
v , antages to the Protestant religion with which
fr uorough reform of the Irish Protestant Church is
alit 1
Mr. Cr
pie,: , how can the letter ofawford, so re-
iii:,,,with acrimonious feeling and gratuitous insult to
goo!,'"eral Irish colleagues, be reconciled either with
for !L sense or judicious policy ? -The Hon. Member
c "undalk taunts the Reformers in the House of
...0r,,,_
)11e-'1"0115 with " blustering swagger in words, and
tailat" submission in action." Will this most unwar-
ei. able charge, a charge not justified by facts or by
Icninstao, ' • breasts of those
Who c es, meet a response in the
Mr.
D onuernned a similarprocedure on the part of .. .
• V. Harvey .. P .
the tithe
ni,
r It is not upon
4-estion , ,
l
gooses alone that we perceive Mr, S. Crawforc
to quarrel with the Reformers of the Lower
Dose
the „.: He asserts that they have already sacrificed
%i 0: ~ence of the Corporate measure to avoid a colli-
li with the, we fear incurable T -'
P With
ho,hie ,
~ ory peers.
kfact. submission, this assertion is at war with
ink, In what consisted the essence of the
bitot
_Pi Bill ? Was it not in the establish-
jar i_ °l.a reformed municipal system in Ireland, simi-
fie
jai pr.inciple to that which is found to work so bene-
-4ppeal)•Nn Great Britain ? So we think, and so, it
liamen't., thought the Tories in both Houses of Par-
,l,A , for they resisted, and, being omnipotent in
c' /louse, rejected
rd , . the measure. Does Mr. S.
''''''sisted ..ncan to say that the essence of that measure
tes ni the number of • •1. •-?I i I •
Inutile:a ale.i tns
Peet alone
slid ~,,. •
snerifi_e .vrintsters and the] Commons make a
cto the adverse feelings of tl Lords. 0 the Was it

SPIRIT OF THE PUBLIC JOURNALS. \ then fair on the part of the Member for Dundalk to
put forth this groundless charge of sacrificing the
essence of the Corporate Reform Bill ? On the whole,
we question if Mr. Crawford's letter will raise his
character in the estimation even of those to whose
warm, and upon the two questions which he discusses,
naturally strong feelings he appeals. It may afford a
handle to faction to play with, but to the Reformers
who have steered a wise and politic course it can do no
harm.—Morning Chronicle.
It is, upon the whole, a matter for congratulation to
the country, and in a worldly sense, above all others,
to the possessors of landed property, that the English
tithe question may now be looked upon as substantially
settled. 'We shall not scrutinize too severely the mo-
tives which have actuated various classes of the com-
munity, through whose acquiescence, or whose more
positive concurrence, this great object of the domestic
policy of England has thus been brought to a fair and
satisfactory adjustment. The non-opposition of the
landowners throughout the kingdom may have pro-
ceeded, as it professed to flow, from the purest feelings
of benevolence and attachment towards the Church ;
nor shall we stop to throw doubts upon the genuine-
ness of such liberality, because of the solid advan-
tages with which it happens to be attended. But
there is one body of men whose intentions no shade
of unfavourable suspicion can be affixed to. The
clergy of England, though not driven by persecution,
like their unhappy brethren on the other side the
Channel—the English clergy, with the vast prepon-
derance of national opinion and sentiment in their
favour, against all who should oppress or disturb
them, with the protecting arm of the law, had such
support been necessary, to uphold them, in the full
maintenance of their just rights, and in the collection
of their unimpaired revenues—that clergy, with nothing
to intimidate, nothing to produce upon them any irre•
gular or overbearing bias, have agreed, without a mur-
mur, to the sacrifice of no inconsiderable present in-
come, and of large, nay indefinite, accessions to it
hereafter, for the sake of spreading increased harmony
and contentment over the land, and of leaving no pre-
tence for even speculative projects, no field for adven-
turous experiments, upon the condition of the Pro-
testant Established Church, to expose the most pre-
cious institution of civilized man to risk, from the
fluctuations and future contingencies of party conflict.
This conduct is noble, for its personal disinterested-
ness, and admirable for its long-sighted wisdom ; nor
can it fail to endear the ministers of the established re-
ligion to that wide portion of their flocks which com-
prehends the middle and labouring classes of society,
who will henceforth stand towards their clergy in the
single and undefiled relation of hearers only of the
word of God from their lips, not as contributors to
their worldly subsistence—as receivers, but no longer
payers.—Times.
Scarcely has the blood of the assassin Fieschi and
the murdered Morey and Pepin, dried upon the scaf-
fold, when the axe of the guillotine drips with the gore
of another political fanatic, who devoted his own life
in attempting to take that of the " Citizen King," the
representative of the " glorious days of July ;" the
President of the " Monarchy with republican insti-
tutions." Whether Alibcaud acted in concert with
others, or conceived and ventured upon the criminal
design alone, his whole conduct, from the moment of
his arrest up to that of his execution, showed that he
was an enthusiast whose morbid sensibilities were
worked up to that pitch of fixed determination which
in the prosecution of a dreadful enterprise, is reck-
less of all consequences: In a Brutus, this would be
called Roman courage. In Alibeaud it was only that
disease of the reason which is called manomania, for
which 'the proper coercion, or cure, was a lunatic
asylum—not the guillotine. Very different was the
conduct of this last assailant of the life of Louis
Philip—who is no more a Csar than Alibeaud was a
Brutus—to that of Fieschi, who was a crazy ruffian,
but not an enthusiast, and who mixed up with unmi-
tigated ferocity the flippant vanity of a coxcomb.
We believed all along, and we believe now, that
Fieschi was a rank coward, who confidently flattered
himself, and seemed to have received secret assur-
ances to that effect, that his life would be spared
at the last moment. Hence the impudent levity with
which he conducted himself before and during his trial,
when he was the coaxed, admired, and even appjauded
hero of that disgusting drama exhibited in the Criminal
Court of the degraded Peers of France, which reflected
the deepest disgrace upon the civilization of our Gallic
neighbours in the nineteenth century. The plot of
Fieschi is still involved in mystery—whether the ob-
scure allusions, which he frequently threw out to some
Clark agency behind the scenes had reference to police
emisseries is a secret that is buried with him. Certain
it is that he denounced two men as accomplices, against
one of whom, with the exception of Fieschi's own de-
clarations, and those of the infamous woman who had
her instructions from him, there was scarcely anything
like evidence, and against the other—none at all. The
ruffian who destroyed 18 or 20. innocent lives at a blow
was consistent in dying his hands in innocent blood at
the moment of going.down to the grave. But what
are we to say of- the " mild and merciful virtues" of
the " Citizen King," who allowed Fieschi's appetite
for human victims to be indulged in the last moments
of his wolfish career ? In order the better to under-
stand the regal virtues of the revolution of July
has encircled with the splendours of a Throne, let us
turn back a page or two in the recent history of France.
We find that on the Bth of October, 1830, M. de
Tracey moved that the punishment of death be abo-*
lished in France. In this he was supported by General
Lafayette, M. Girod de l'Ain, M. Keratry, and other
distinguished Deputies. General Lafayette emphati-
cally observed, in allusion to the infliction of that pu-
nishment for political offences, " Those who seek for
the adjournment of this proposition have not had the
misfortune to see their families dragged to the scaffold.
I am, for my part, the enemy of the punishment of
death, and above all, the enemy of the punishment of
death in political matters." M. Girod de l'Ain, after
an able and convincing argument, proposed that the
punishment of death be abolished. He said " a pro-
ject of law will be presented to the Chamber during
the session, to determine the punishments which ought
to be substituted for the punishment of death in the
cases to which it is now applied." Subsequently an
address, supplicating him to prepare a law for the abo-
lition of the punishment of death, was carried by a
majority of 225 to 21, which was received by the King
in a manner which left no doubt on the minds of the
supporters of the address that lie sincerely meditated
the abolition of that punishment. On the 17th of the
same month of October King Louis Philippe received
a deputation from Stt Brieux, capital of the Cotes du
Nord. M. Charles Lucas, Advocate in the Royal
Court of Paris, one of the deputation, addressed the
King in a speech which concluded in the follow-
ing words :—" Permit me, Sire, to express a per-
sonal wish—namely, that we owe the abo-
lition of the penalty of death to the reign to which we
are already indebted for the abolition of war." The
King said in his answer that he had not forgotten the
brave battalions of the Cotes du Nord, with whom he
had fought at Gcnappe, and that if there still remained
in the department some of those old defenders of the
country, he begged the deputation to tell them that he
remembered them with affection. " I am happy," he
added, " at the abolition of civil war in your country;
and as for the abolition of the penalty of death, I am
led to desire it, from a conviction which I have enter-
tainedtw throughout
King
my life, and I shall do my utmostt
orealize your wish, which is also mine." The King
hore expressed that sentiment is he under whose reign
more blood has been shed in France by military exe-
cution than in any former period, with the exception
of the " reign of terror," that could be mentioned.
It is the same King whose throne " with republi-
can institutions," is surrounded by bayonets—whose
reign is aseries of emeutes—police plots and politi-
cal assassinations, and whose Government is supported
by incessant prosecutions
against the press, by Fieschi
laws, which trample ill liberty in the dust, and by the
vigorous working of the machinery of the guillotine.
A'Sovereign of whose character some portion of wis-
dom and mercy formed any part would have sent Ali-
beaud to a lunatic asylum. His death upon the scaf-
fold will only have the effect of a dreadful attraction upon
the diseased temperaments of other rnonomaniasts of his
class, men of strong political antipathies, whose mor-
bid imaginations, by an exclusive contemplation of the
one idea, are wrought upon and maddened " to that

worst pitch of all which bears a reasoning show." Was
Alibeaud put to death for example's sake ? Why then
endeavour to make a secret of his execution ? Ii
appears that it was intended to enact the horrible tra-
gedy at so early an hour as three o'clock is the morn-
ing, when all the population for whose benefit the ex-
ample was intended were supposed to be in profound
repose. It was an accident which revealed this design
to the people of Paris. If Alibeaud was not put to
death as an example, for what purpose was he put to
death at all ? Was the " Citizen King" afraid that
the victim would have the sympathies of the people ?
If so, could he not have seen that the taking of the
life of the unfortunate man would be only an unprofit-
able shedding of blood ? Can any example of pu-
nishment be beneficial which enlists the feelings of the
community on the side of the sufferer ? When we
witness such scenes occurring so frequently in France
under the new regime, let us recollect the emphatic
declaration of Louis Phillippe to the friends of the abo-
lition of the penalty of death, when the lives of the
ex-Ministers vvere in jeopardy—" I shall do my utmost
to realise your wish, which is also mine!"—Morning
Herald.
The case ,of Dr. Beaumont, in whose person the
French Government has committed a most flagrant
violation of the rights of British subjects, as well as
of the law of nations, was last evening the subject of a
public meeting at the Crown and Anchor. Mr.
O'Connell presided, and addressed the meeting in
the most eloquent and energetic manner, condemna-
tory of the aggression committed by the French
Government in punishing a British subject on an ex-
postfacto law. Dr. Beaumont's sole offence con-
sisted in his being a member of a society for pro-.
moting the interests of the working classes. At the
time there was no law in France under which he could
be legally convicted ; but the French Government
arrested him, and after keeping him in prison for two
years, a law was passed on the Fieschi attempt, under
which Dr. Beaumont was arraigned, and having re-
fused to plead, was pronounced guilty, and sentenced
to deportation,—a sentence which was afterwards
commuted, and under another ex-post:facto law, he
was sentenced to perpetual imprisonment in a
French dungeon ! Is this to be endured ? The
outrage committed on Dr. Beaumont is an outrage on
the British nation ; and if France choose to disgrace
herself by submission to a tyrant, it is no reason why
England should become a participator in her degrada-
tion, and basely allow one of her subjects, guiltless of
any crime, to be the victim of an atrocious and abomi-
nable despotism. If this be submitted to, what Eng-
lishman on the Continent will be safe ? It is nothing
less than an invitation to tyranny to select a victim
from the subjects of a nation which, by acquiescing in
the present instance, would show itself either unwilling
or unable to vindicate the rights of her citizens. It
is almost incredible that the French Government would
have dared such an aggression—perpetual imprison-
ment of a British subject ! and for what ? Being a
member of a society for advancing the interests of the
working classes I We do not blame the French people
—we would, if they would but vindicate their own
liberties, gladly hail them as brothers=but we have
not words adequately to denounce the Government to
which they have so shamelessly yielded the destinies of
their country.—Morning Advertiser.
Mr. O'Connell's patriotic missives to his country-
men, in which he exhorts them to obey the law, but
nevertheless to obtain by agitation what he wants,
whether the law will give it or not, are most consist-
ently supported by the demonstrations of his Radical
friends , here, who enlighten the nation through the
medium of the Ministerial newspapers. They even
go beyond him in that particular department of his
public labours which he seems to perform with the
heartiest good-will. We allude to his coarse and
venomous abuse of the British name and nation—his
brutal hatred of that honest Protestant people to whom,
if he were ever in the slightest degree capable of
honourable gratitude, he would constantly show his
thankfulness, by behaviour such as they could esteem.
It is the part of gross and ungenerous minds to believe
that no boon is ever conferred except through fear of
withholding it, or hope of obtaining some selfish ad-
vantage in return for it. Upon this principle Mr.
O'Connell supposes that when the British nation
granted an equality of Legislative privileges to the
Roman Catholics of Ireland, they did so either because
they could not help it, or because they wanted to
make some use of him, to establish a popular influ-
ence in Ireland. The former is the cause which he
now affects to believe—the latter teas the darling con-
viction of his soul ; and the personal disappointment
of that conviction is, no doubt, the origin of all the
rage against the Conservative party that he has since
exhibited. The truth is, the British people ac-
quiesced in Catholic Emancipation, so far as they ac-
quiesced in it at all, from a sentiment of national
kindliness and good-will ; and what they hoped for in
return was, the peaceable and legal conduct of those
who, up to that time, contended that their violence and
agitation had for its object the attainment of Emanci-
pation, and that alone. But this would by no means
suit Mr. O'Connell's temperament. He was resolved
either to hold the place of influential friend of -the
Government, and absolute master of Ireland, as lie now
does in relation to the Melbourne humbug, called, by
courtesy, an Administration, or to have his revenge for
being neglected, and to give the most violent kind of
practical evidence that his hatred of England and
Englishmen was not dead, but had only slept while
there was a hope of getting something better for him-
self by fulsome flattery of England—of the House of
Lords—and especially of the Duke of Wellington.
During the year 1829 there was enough of this to
sicken every man in England, gentle or simple, who
was possessed of that spirit which becomes a man.
But to return to our sheep—those " best public in-
structors," who now help out Mr. O'Connell in his
libels upon Englishmen because they will not be the
slaves of Mr. O'Connell's slaves, namely, the present
Ministers. A Ministerial paper of yesterday brings
forward in its most vehement manner these charges
against the farmers of England :
I. " That it has been demonstrably proved in Warwick.
shire, South Devon, Northamptonshire, and other counties,
that by the operation of Lord Chandos's tenantry at will
clause in the Reform Act the farmers in this country are
reduced to the most cruel vassalage."
2. That " they are driven to the hard necessity of
screening their abject slavery beneath the cloak of Sectarian
animosity."
3. That " they are driven to the poll like oxen to the
pens of Smithfield by their Tory landlords and Tory
agents."
4. That " the farmers of England, in a majority of in-
stances, are glad to hide the shame of a necessary sub-
serviency to the will of a tyrannical Tory proprietary under
the veil of a religious rancour."
We would fain hope that no Englishman—that no
man who feels as an Englishman—could be guilty of
the foregoing insulting falsehoods. What does he
mean by a " necessary subserviency" to such base-
ness ? An Englishman cannot understand the neces-
sity of being a dastardly, false tongued scoundrel,
which he must be if such charges could be established
against him. They are false--grossly, foully, false—
and we only wish that it were possible for language to
convey the intensity of the conviction, and the depth
of the scorn, with which we charge falsehood upon the
low-thoughted libellers of the British farmers who have
the audacity to venture upon such charges ? Talk of
" insults to Ireland," because the Upper House of
Parliament judges it. meet to guard the country from
the machinations of perjured political mountebanks I
What are we to call such charges as these ? Are they
not insults—insults of a character which every honest
man who feels for outraged honesty ought to re-
sent ? But we are, perhaps, wrong to be moved to
anger by such gross folly, for the folly—the mean,
drivelling, idiotic folly—of the charges is even more
apparent than their insulting character. Let men
who have eyes to see, and ears to hear, judge. Let
experience say where there is anything like " cruel
vassalage" on the part of the English farmers ? There
is no such thing—they would allow no mortal man,
Lord or Commoner, to make vassals of them. But
they are "abject slaves" too ; and, instead of rising up
to abolish their slavery, they " cloak" it, forsooth, be-
" sectarian animosity." Insolent idiot ! Again,
" they (the farmers of England) are driven to the poll
like oxen to the pens at Smithfield." Tut, tut
we should like to see the men, or the army, that
would so drive English farmers. The host which
that great chief of liberals, Napoleon Bonaparte,