The Sun.
London, England, 1836-03-12 00:00:00

of the observations actually given. "It appears,-
slys the Committee, " that Mr. O'Connell addressed
a letter to Mr. Raphael, dated the lst of June, 1835,
which contained an agreement for the payment of
2,0001., as.a condition of his election for the repre-
sentation of Carlow. The Committee cannot help
observing, that the whole tone and tenour of that let-

ter was calculated to excite much suspicion and grave
animadversion." So far the Itgport is distinct and
intelligilb enough. Let us now sec how " the sus-
picion and grave animadversion" which, in the judg-
ment of the Committee, " the who!e tone and

tenour of Mr. O'Connell's letter was calculated
to excite," are. got rid of. " But," continues ,this
logical Committee, " upon a very careful inves-
tigation of what had previously taken place be-
tween Mr. Raphael, Mr. Tyrrell, Mr. Vigors,
and others of the county of Carlow, they feel
bound to add, that it was proved to their satisfac-
tion that Mr. O'Connell had acted on this occa-
sion at the express desire of Mr. Raphael, and was only
the medium of communication between Mr. Vigors
(actin► on the part of others in the county of Carlow)
and Mr. Raphael." We wish the Committee had
told the House a little more clearly what it intended
to convey by this unmeaning " but." Can it be
meant to Intimate that the grounds of " much suspi-
cion and grave animadversion" were removed by the
discovery that Mr. O'Connell had acted at the express
desire of Raphael, and was only the medium of com-
munication between the latter and Mr. Vigors ? is
the representation of counties to be put for sale at
2,0001. a seat, and the parties or agents in this
unconstitutional traffic to be let off in considera-
tion of such facts as these ? Would the Com-
mittee have us understand by its extenuating " but"
that Mr. O'Connell's letter which would have
been a subject of " much suspicion and grave
animadversion, had nothing further been known,
becomes innocent and laudable the moment Mr.

O'Connell is found to have been the tool of Ra-
phael and Vigors ? Or can the Committee, in the
face of O'Connell's whole correspondence, in the
face of his entire conduct, in the face of his con-
stant assumption that the success of the candi-
dates depended altogether upon his patronage, in the
face of his notorious position and character, hope to
make the House of Commons or the country believe
that Raphael and Vigors were not the tools of O'Con-
nell, but O'Connell really and truly the tool of those
Gentlemen ? The most silly, desperate, and con-
temptible of all imaginable attempts to whitewash Mr.
O'Connell is certainly that of describing him as
any thing less than a principal in the transaction.
The concluding passage of the Report is limited
to the general statement, that Mr. O'Connell did
not keep back the money he had received from Mr.
Raphael—when it was wanted for the expenses of the
election—that the money was expended in the county
of Carlow under the direction of Mr. Vigors and
others, and that the manner of its expenditure is not
shown to have been illegal. We submit that this
leaves the case precisely where the Committee found
it. It has never been pretended that Mr. O'Connell
actually gained money by his traffic with Mr.
Raphael. The charge against him was and is that
he acted as a man would act who intended to gain
money by such a transaction, and as a man not in-
tending to gain money could not have acted. That
Mr. O'Connell was disappointed does not in the
least alter the original character of the transaction.
Why but in contemplation of money-making was
Raphael to pay 1,0001. " merely for being nomi-
nated ?" Why but in contemplation of money-making
was Raphael required to pay an additional 1,0001. in
the event of being returned, an event which did not,

in its nature, imply a necessary, or even so much as a
probable, increase of the expense of the election ? We
marvel that the Committee could help observing also
the " whole tone and temper of the letter" offering the
Baronetcy, " was calculated to excite much suspicion
and grave animadversion." This the Committee should
certainly have said, had it only been for sake of dis-
playing its logical dexterity and its enlightened can-
dour in the shape of some convenient and extenuating
" BUT."—Morning Post.
It will be seen from the proceedings in the House
of Commons last night, that the Committee upon the
Carlow Election gave in their brief Report to the
House upon the subject which they had been ap-
pointed to investigate, and that in that Report they
thoroughly and completely exonerate Mr. O'Connell
from the charge of personal dishonesty—or, in other
words, a personal application of funds destined for
the promotion of a public purpose. In so far we
believe that they have done well. Strongly opposed
as we have invariably been to the tortuous policy and
brutal language so frequently used by the Agitator,
we not only never dreamed for an instant that he had
dipped his hands in the Raphael bag for his own
private purposes, but, on the contrary, most strenu-
ously defended him against the attacks of those who
insinuated that it was his intention to appropriate a
part of the 2,000:- paid into his hands by Raphael
to such use ; and we are glad that the Committee of
Inquiry have, after a painful investigation, come to
the same conclusion. Still, we cannot help remarking
that Mr. O'Connell's best wits seem to have desertedl
him with regard to the extra money paid by Mr.
Raphael. Hi.s bargain with that gentleman was,
that he should not only be elected, but held harmless
of all further expenses, and his seat rendered secure
for the sum of 2,0001.: the result was, that Raphael
was ejected on very proper grounds, and that he had
to pay, in a vain endeavour to maintain his position,
upwards of 1,0001. more. Mr. O'Connell having
thereby failed in fulfilling his contract, ought imme-
diately, as the smallest atonement for his failure, to
have returned the additional maney to Raphael ;
and had he done so, his honour in the affair
would have remained pure and intact from malig-
nant observation ; whereas, what does he do ? He
first insinuates the expectation of a baronetcy, as
if to 'save himself from the fulfilment of the rash
bargain into which he had entered, and then pro-
poses an arbitration in a matter which, if the terms of
the original letter be worth anything, cannot be a mat-
ter of arbitration at all. Now, we say, that in doing
these things, Mr. O'Connell has sadly departed from
his usual tact—we will not add discretion—and com-
mitted himself with his friends and. the public in a
manner which they cannot forget. Of Mr. Raphael's
conduct in the matter, no one can by possibility ap-
prove. It has been mean in the extreme ; but the
meanness of one party cannot excuse the meanness of
another. If Raphael would have his " pound of
flesh," Mr. O'Connell ought to have been on his
guard, and treated his customer accordingly. The
whole affair is exceedingly disgraceful to the parties
concerned, and by no means creditable to a Reformed
Parliament.—Morning Advertiser.
The public, as well as Parliament itself, ought to
feel indebted to Mr. Young, the Member for Tyne-
mouth, for having called attention to a practice which
is calculated to stultify and reverse the labours and
inquiries of its Committees. Many of our readers
may not he aware that it has long been the practice to
send to witnesses examined before Committees copies
of the short-hand writer's notes, with the view of ena-
bling them to correct any mistakes which the rapidity
of the note-taker may have unavoidably led him into.
Thus far the practice and the object are laudable
enough. But the abuse which it has led to was never
contemplated,and will, we trust, be no longer tolerated.
Not contented with the opportunity thus afforded of
correcting errors, witnesses have been constantly in the
habit not only of remodelling, their language, but in
many instances of reversing their testimony. On nu-
merous occasions negatives and affirmatives have been
substituted for each other ; and Committees have
actually bad to report upon evidence which, when
printed., has turned out to be widely different from that
which, they have heard, and as such by no means bear-
ing ceut the inference which they have drawn from it.
We..lknow too well the danger we should run in ad-
vat ow with the freedom we should otherwise do to the
ins mice brought forward_ by the Hon. Member for
tnemouth ; and shall be contented, if an abuse so
lc,ng existing;
be after this exposure nu longer per-
'xitted.—Mornin: Herald.

1 meeting on the subject
-,,stem, in St. Cle-
-stris has bees

It was stated, at a parochia, .
of the introduction of the new Poor,lavr
ment Danes vestry, on Tuesday, that 14aqame v,,
proposed as one of tho candidate guardianii