The Sun.
London, England, 1836-09-29 00:00:00

Legislative Assembly—and it was instantly drowned
in the universal shout of disapprobation. The im-
portance of this fact will best,be collected from the list
of names given at the head of the report, and the in-
troductory remarks of the local journalist. When next
the Quarterly Reviewer adverts to the conduct of the
House of Lords during the last Session, and ts) the
winding-up speech of Baron Lyndhurst, in which are
paraded the ghosts of slaughtered Bills, we would re-
commend him to recollect this fact. It will be good
" increment" for his imagination. Meantime, their
Lordships would do worse, infinitely worse, than pon-
der upon the incident ; it is full of instructive import,
from which they may gather wholesome information,
provided they form not a portion of the fore-doomed.
—Morning Chronicle.

Our Irish correspondence presents nothing new : if
it did, we might begin to attach less interest to the
facts which it communicates. There is no paradox in
the declaration, that the most important and impressive
circumstance belonging to the state of Ireland seems
to us to be the never-varying complexion of her poli-
tical history for these last 18 or 20 months. The
regular, continuous, and unbroken tendency of the
transactions which take place in that death-doomed
country towards a consummation at once terrible and
simple—viz., the triumph of systematic falsehood over
unteachable credulity as itt instrument, and civil and
religious liberty as its victim—has something awful
in :the very singleness and uniformity of a movement
to be terminated by such a result. Within these
three or four days we have signalized the abuse of
language now prevalent among the anti-British fac-
tion throughout Ireland, as a curious weapon to be
selected by men on whose banners are inscribed the
words " toleration, liberty, justice," &c. But an abuse
of language in this case ends not in mere deception :
it amounts to and embraces every one of the crimes
which it is employed to instigate. Where it is
designed to cover the characters of individuals with
undeserved reproach, it becomes malignant slander ;
where it meditates the excitement of the poor to tur-
bulence, contempt for, and hostility to, the laws, the
abuse of speech becomes insurrection. Where it en-
courages violence which provokes to the shedding of
Mood, abuse of speech ripens into murder. The
O'Connell practice of misapplying words does not,
therefore, stop at mere verbal fraud. It is what it pro-
duces; it is whatever evil springs from it—persecution,
insurrection, religious rancour, civil war, brutal massacre,
and social ruin. Every man who serves the O'Connell
cause receives the O'Connell brand upon his spirit,
and degenerates into the likeness of his unprincipled
and degraded master. Men grow into that with which
they sympathize, and adopt the vocabulary and circu-
late the deceits most in use with them at the head of
the faction wherewith they form an alliance. How
else can any rational being account for the senti-
ments delivered on a late occasion by a Mr. Villiers
Stuart, to whom a set of people in the interest of
the Popish movement gave a public dinner at Water-
ford not very many days ago ? We suspect they
want this personage to enact some part which requires
some qualifications in its representative different from
either absolute wisdom, or the power of distinguish-
ing between the most elementary truth and the most
palpable and puerile falsehood. 'What says the report
of Mr. Stuart's speech ? In turning the edge of his
leaden sword af.;ainst the House of Lords for its as-
sumed " hostility to Ireland," he not merely invents
the hostility, but in a manner the most gratuitous and
generous, proceeds to account for it. It was, says he,
by the instrumentality of Irishmen," (meaning
O'Connell and his tail, which one assertion, strange to
say, is true, and we hope the people of England will
never lose sight of it), "by the instrumentality of
Irishmen, that the favourite Administration of that
party" (to wit, of the majority of the House of Lords)
" was overthrown, and the country saved from the
grasp of those who were on the point cftrampliqg its
liberties under foot." Coming to Lord Lyndhurst,
this respectable spouter of contemporary history goes
on to allege that " he (Lord Lyndhurst) is known to
feel a deadly and unappeasable hatred against every
man wino has stood in the way of his ambition."
Moreover, " that the Learned Lord hates the Irish be-
cause he has injured them ! Now, to begin with
the last number of this unfounded and senseless
diatribe, we believe that if there be a man on earth
whose infirmity it is that he actually cannot hate,
that his mind is incapable of lasting resentment, even

towards his bitterest personal foe, that individual is
Lord Lyndhurst, perhaps the most placable and the
least malevolent of all created beings. But "he hates"
those whom "he has injured." Now we beg leave to
ask of Mr. Villiers Stuart how he means to justify
this charge of " injury inflicted upon Ireland" by
Lord Lyndhurst ? and which, besides, the after-dinner
orator asserts to have been inflicted before the last
Session of Parliament, stimulating the perverse and
rancorous heart of the Learned Lord to those unjust
votes with which, throughout the Session, his Lord-
ship followed up the previous bad acts ascribed to him ?
Lord Lyndhurst had for many years, as likewise had
the Duke of Wellington and Sir Robert Peel, enter-
tained strong objections to the abolition of Romish
disabilities. His Lordship, then Lord Chancellor,
concurred with the illustrious Duke and with the
Right Honourable Baronet in their sacrifice of
those objections during the year 1829, and with

them assented to the introduction and enactment o

the Bill of Roman Catholic emancipation. The most
execrably rancorous and worthless of the Papists
(O'Connell at the head of them), as stated the day be-
fore yesterday by Mr. Eneas IVlacdonnell, were loud
in their expressions of delight and gratitude towards
the Tory Ministry by which that Bill was passed ;
and, indeed, had Whigs been Ministers, the Papists
might even at this hour been " whistling for" admis-
sion to Parliament. Well, then, when the whole Wel-
lington Government has been praised as a benefactor
to Ireland for that measure, is Lord Lyndhurst to be
excluded from his fair portion of that praise ? Did
he alone make no sacrifice to .the hope (the vain
hope we admit it has turned out) of establishing
tranquillity in Ireland ? We recommend Mr. Vil-
liers Stuart, if be have candour or right feeling
for such an effort, to read the excellent letter of
Mr. Eneas Macdonnel], and the frightful exposure
made by that gentleman of the mean inconsistency and
heartless ingratitude displayed by the Radical Papist
crew towards the Statesmen by whom they were
lifted from otherwise hopeless degradation. Let
this weak-minded or callous partisan of the Papist
movement see, in the clear narrative of our Cor-
respondent, how shamefully he has calumniated
the Conservative party, when he calls them the
enemies of Ireland. Let him look to the acts of
the Session 1835, and to the pledged intentions and
notices of Sir R. Peel and his colleagues, for an un-
answerable and humiliating contradiction of his own
foolish words—that the Conservatives were, when
compelled to give up office, " on the point of tramp-
ling on the liberties of Ireland." Why, there was
not an act or principle promotive of the national liber-
ties, or favourable to the redress of real grievances,
which the Peel Ministry had not promised. and been
prepared to incorporate with their policy. The Irish
tithes would have been long ago commuted, and a
solid and satisfactory, not sham, state of quiet, would
have been maintained throughout the country, had
not the Conservatives felt bound in honour to release
themselves as a Government ; though, alas ! they
could not relieve their country from the assaults of a
tyrannical majority—the first fruits of an experiment
in legislation,, which, so far as that majority went,
was assuredly no " reform." Another functionary of
tnhoeu
pro-
nouncing same feast, a Sir Somebody Keane, redeemed in
a great measure the credit of the meeting, by pro-
an ironical panegyric on O'Connell, the bit-
terness of which must have sorely vexed the agitator
Bhiamrosenlefl hadhe been there to hear it. The worthy
reproached O'Connell with being a statesman I
—a philosopher
moralist I—and a MAN ! Ay,
a modern Pitiacus. Shade of the mighty Lesbian,
how art thou dishonoured I—Times.

We referred yesterday to the article in the number
„published, headed "The Last
of the Quarterly jurt
Session of Parliament. We recur to it, not because
of anything vigorous in its conception, or striking in
its illustrations, for there is a manifest absence of both
these qualities, but because of the Weight and influ-
ence which the organ in which it appears possesses
singular
with the Conservative party. Among other