The Sun.
London, England, 1836-09-22 00:00:00

SPIRIT OF THE PUBLIC JOURNALS.

In the communication of our Dublin Correspondent,
dated the 19th instant, there will be found two letters
from Mr. O'Connell—one to the editor of the Dublin
Pilot, and the other to two gentlemen
.whom Mr.
O'Connell addresses as editors of the Times. That
an invasion of private life is not an allowable means of
combating an enemy, is a proposition which all will
readily admit. The saying of a Greek orator, that no
man ought to be trusted by the public whose private
life is not above reproach, may or may not be true ;
but, before we can sit in judgment on any man's pri-
vate life, we aught to know the motives of his conduct,
and the circumstances in which he was placed, and on
such an inquiry no public tribunal can enter. But
when a party threatens the private life of another, the
euestion is, whether is the menace offensive or defen-
sive ? In these cases the assailant at all events is not
entitled to reproach him who retaliates, whatever the
public may be justified in doing. Whoever, therefore,
may be entitled to express disgust at the publication of
these letters, we think this language comes with
very bad grace from an Evening paper which nightly
outrages decency in its malignant and ribald at-
tacks upon Mr. O'Connell, and Yet pretends to
wondrous zeal for religion, and even to moderation
in the tone of its diatribes. It is really ludicrous
to observe the sanctimonious whine of that jour-
nal over what it calls Mr. O'Connell's " hateful
letter," when we recollect the outrageously abusive
language invariably used by its conductors whenever—
and that is as often as the paper is published—they
mention Mr. O'Connell's name, or refer to the Catho-
lic priesthood and the condition 'of Ireland. They who
in the fulfilment of their avocations make a trite use of
such terms as " blackguarclism," " ruffianly," cow-
. ardly," " mendicant," " liar," in their comments upon
Mr. O'Connell's public conduct, have the pharisaic
impudence to censure him for retorting their own in-
famous weapons upon his unremitting assailants !
Does not it well become such writers to give lectures
on taste ? Had not the grossness of the unprovoked
aggression of the Times upon Mr. O'Connell war-
ranted him in falling foul of his assailants, we should
not only have censured his letter, but refused it insertion.
Nothing short of the provocation he has received could
justify the Honourable and Learned Gentleman in the
course he has adopted and the language he has used.
What are the facts out of which this violent retort has
arisen ? In a letter to the Secretary of the General
Association of Ireland, published some weeks ago,
Mr. O'Connell said,• in reference to the adhesion of
a Catholic Prelate to. the Association :
" This very respected Prelate is as ready as ever he was
to discountenance any agitation which he deems unneces-
sary ; and his coming forward at such a moment as the
present
demonstrates that the iron has entered our very
souls ; and that Ireland is in the throes of a political con-
vulsion, occasioned by the audacious insolence of such an
vnrespectable person as Lord Lyndhurst, of whom I shall
say no more at present, as it will be my duty to bring in
all its proper bearings before the public the hideous details
(pis life. He has provoked ma to it, and I have declined
to act upon that provocation as long as my reply could he
imputed to personal or individual resentment. I abide my
time to, give flee full history of all the partnerships that have
distingiiished his ; but I reserve them fin. the period if
the greatest utility; that is, for the beginning of the next
session of Parliament."
These were the only allusions at all personal to
Baron Lyndhurst that appeared in Mr. O'Connell's
letter. The Times fastened on this passage, and on
the 20th ult. unsluieed i;s entire reservoir of scurrility
and malice upon tie author in the following style :---
What an unredeemed and unrcdeeniable scoundrel is
this O'Connell to make'such h threat, and at such a time
too ! If he has not lied more foully than it could .have
entered into the imagination of the Devil himself to lie, he
makes the threat with his own wife dying under his very
eyes ! Ole ! how long shall such a wretch as this be tole-
rated among civilized men But But let him mark us well :
as surely as he dares to invade the privacy of the life of
Lord Lyndhurst, or of any other man, woman, or child,
that may happen, by themselves or their relatives, to be
opposed to him in politics, so surely will we carry the war
into his domiciles at Derrynane and Dublin, and show up
the whole brood of O'Connells, young-and old."
The atrocity of this attack has not been equalled in
onadav, and has never been surpassed. It was un-
provoked, uncalled for, unwarranted, and brutal. Nor
did the Liberal Press allow so foul and malevolent a
piece of literary beastliness to escape censure for a day.
_l.r. O'Connell, the reader has observed, did not al-
lude, proximately or remotely, to Lord Lyndhurst's
private life, and the context demonstrates that " the
partnerships" hinted at must have been exclusively
political, fur Mr. O'Connell promised to bring them
under the notice of Parliament ; and we need not re-
mark, that in Parliament lie would not be permitted,
had he the inclination, to lift the veil that screens the
privacy of domestic life. The Learned Baron's poli-
tical partnerships are sufficiently numerous and revolt-
ing to answer the purposes of his adversaries ; and to
the exposure of these Mr. O'Connell evidently promised,
in the quoted extract from his letter, to apply himself.
This must have been perceived by the Times, though
it suited the spiteful purpose of its conductors to torture
the words of the letter to a meaning which they were
not intended to bear and did not convey ; and even to
follow the ingenious device of M'Ghee, by forging
the word " private into the version of the original
document given by them in their editorial columns.
These opinions we expressed three weeks ago, and
we are confirmed in them by another perusal of Mr.
O'Connell's letter, and of the savage scurrility which
was flung upon the Learned Gentleman by a writer
who showed that he really is, as he professes to be,
Mr. O'Connell's "sworn foe," and by allowing perso-
nal enmity to warp his conduct as a journalist, de-
graded, so far, the character of the press. No doubt
we shall hear a great deal of trashy talk about.O'Con-
nell's coarseness, vulgarity, brutality, &c., in his retort
upon his " sworn foes." What ! and is lie to be black-
guarded, vilified abused through every mood and
tense—every morning and every night—by pharisees,
renegades, and hirelings—are his actions to be misrepre-
sented—his motives assailed; his family traduced—and
his own private life, which we believe to be as blameless
as that of most men—menaced with libellous calumny—is
all this to be done with impunity ? And if Mr.
O'Connell turn upon his enemies, and meet their at-
tacks with their own favourite weapon, is there to be
no justification, no excuse for him ? To the winds
with such despicable cant Away with such spurious
morality ! The treatment experienced by Mr. O'Con-
nell at the hands of Lord LyndhurSt and the Tory
journalists would warrant any retaliation to which he
could resort. His assailants have outlawed them-
selves, and are not entitled to the privileges
and immu-
nities of society. Having outraged decency and
trampled upon decorum in their perpetual abuse of
Mr. O'Connell, they have no right to- claim or to ex-
pect moderation in his retorts. Of this they may rest
assured, the public sympathy will not sustain them in
the conflict which they have gratuitously sought, nor
alleviate the torture which may be inflicted by blows,
the use of which they have themselves taught._-.
Morning Chronicle.

That most respectable person Mr. Daniel O'Con-
nell has been pleased to address to the editor of the
Pilot two letters, which we give in another column,
from our Contemporary the Standard, whose,but
observa-
tions on the epistles we would gladly copy also,
that our doing so might subject us to the imputation
of being parties to panegyrics on ourselves. Daniel
calls the gentlemen whom he addresses "editors of the
Times newspaper," and, again, "the principal writers"
in it. He threatens, moreover, to give their "own
histories," and, if we have been able to gather mean-
ing from more rabid rant than ever before proceeded
from an animal ont of a strait .waistcoat, he threatens
also to give the histories of all persons connected with
this journal. We believe there is no such person who
cares two straws how soon Daniel berr ins his work ;
but if there be any one who does, we think we may
safely console him s.vith the suggestion, that as Daniel
never yet spoke the truth except by accident, it is most
likely he lies here after his accustomed fashion. Every-
body knows, and Daniel's nearest friends and most in-
timate acquaintance know best, that he is without ex-
ception the greatest liar in Europe ;—perhaps we are
overrating the oriental Long-bows in seam°. them
above him. Were it not for this character
which
Daniel has everywhere earned, we would willingly
lend him a helping hand, and furnish him with mate-
rials- for all the biographies lie menaces. But what

would be the use of this ? Were we rascals, we
should only have to get Daniel to say so, in order
to have it believed that we were the honestest fel-
lows under the sun. So again—being gentlemen,
if we were to make Daniel call us so, we should at
once be pronounced unredeemable blackguards. We,
therefore, leave the Irish Munchausen to make his
own materials. The only point on which the public
is concerned in this matter is, that Daniel having
threatened to make an attack upon Lord Lyndhurst's
private character, we declared that if he executed his
threat, "we would carry the war into his domiciles at
Derrynane and Dublin, and show up the whole breed
of O'Connells, young and old." We make no vain
boasting, no asseverations ; but so sure as Daniel
O'Connell makes good his menace, so surely will we
make good ours. If he doubts us, let him try.—Times.
The addresses of several Liberal Members of Parlia-
ment to their constituents, to which we adverted about
ten days since, and especially the letter of Sir Win.
Molesworth to the electors of East Cornwall, have, as
we anticipated, produced a strong sensation through-
out the country. The latter document, though
scarcely noticed by any of our Contemporaries at the
time of its publication, has now become the topic of
general discussion—its liberal and frankly expressed
opinions callinj forth an approving response from
the Reformers, and, as a matter of course, with every
thing honest, honourable, and patriotic, forming a text
for Tory denunciation. The rank and character of
Sir 'William Molesworth are such that not even the
foulest and most depraved journal in Europe dare
question the integrity of his motives, and, therefore,
the Times not having a pretext, nor shadow of a pre-
text to indulge its favourite occupation of Billings-
gate invective in this regard, and not being able to
bshake the position taken by the Hon. Baronet, at-
tempts to reply by fallacious assertions, of which it has
always an ample supply—some worn-out nonsense
about " ancient national institutions, and an attack
upon the " logic" of the letter, so illogical in itself,
that the dullest schoolboy could expose its fallacies.
Sir William declares his opinions honestly, and
without disguise. He is in favour of the Ballot, Tri-
ennial Parliaments, an extension of the Suffrage, the
separation .of Church and State, the expulsion of the
Bishops from the Lords, and last, and most important,
the Reform of the House of Lords. These opinions,
though entertained by the great majority of the people
of Great Britain, and amongst the rest by the majority
of Sir William's constituents, he foresees must prevent
his re-election without great expenditure and personal
exertion, and therefore he announces his intention cf
not offering himself as a candidate at the next elec-
tion. Sir Villiam is perfectly aware that the electors
of East Cornwall would support end return him as the
representative of the principles which he avows, were
they at liberty to vote without undue influence and
control ; but he is equally aware that the Tory and
Whig-Tory landlords, churchmen, &c., would inter-
fere with the free And fair exercise of the elective fran-
chise, and consequently the expenses of opposing such
illegal and corrupt authority would be enormous.
Thus, feeling in his own person the evil of not.havins•
the protection of the ballot, he recommends to his
constituents to exact a pledge in favour of that mode.
of voting from the next candidate for their represen-
tation.. 'This—the ballot—the protection of the poor
man from the persecution of the rich, in the exer-
cise of his first right of citizenship, is called by the.
Times " the most unconstitutional, extravagant, and
odious, of all ultra-Radical propositions."' Ile
Times exhibits its logic by arguing that, because Sir
William was already returned without the ballot, the
presence or absence of the ballot could not have the
slightest effect in now turning his friends against him.
Oh, rare logician ! But we might as well reason with
" an affidavit man" of the Old Bailey as with a writer
who, disregarding honour, truth, character, consis-
tency, country, and all the estimable attributes of man,
seeks only to pander to the vilest cravings of party,
and batten on the produce of his prostitution. One
fallacy more, . however. The Times observes, " It
appears to us, as we think it must to Sir William him-
self. upon a moment's further reflection, that if he has
really ceased to represent the constituency which re-
turned him, he is bound in conscience not to wait for
a general election. It is his duty to retire now." Sir
William never asserted, as the Times ingeniously im-
plies, that he ceased to represent the constituency
which returned him, but expressed his opinion tlit,
that constituency would, in case of an election, be de-
terred from supported him. His resignation, there-
fore, at the present moment would be the grossest
abandonment of a great trust. It would he deserting
his post in the hour of need, and voluntarily exposing
his constituents to all the evils which he deprecates.
It is not alone the sentiments of the electors of East
Cornwall, which Sir William Molesworth represents
in the opinions to which he has so nobly given expres-
sion, but the feelings of the whole British people.
Why then should he retire ?-111orning Advertiser.'
The recent revolutionary movement in Portugal
proves that the Queen of that country ought to have
been attending to her own affairs when she was inter-
meddling in those of Spain. She had better have
kept the " Portuguese auxiliary legion" at home, than
sent it to learn a revolutionary lesson in a neighbouring
kingdom. The quadruple alliance—the master-piece
of Lord Palmerston's diplomatic genius—has certainly
had the most disastrous effects upon the concerns of
the two unhappy Queens, whom our noble and chival-
rous Secretary for Foreign Affairs had so gallantly
taken under his protection !—a protection always as
fatal to his friends as their enemies could desire. Louis
Philippe—another member of the quadruple alliance—
has been rather too clever for Lord Palmerston, and,
consequently, has not allowed himself to be befooled
into sending an army over the Pyrenees to support
a revolution in Spain by endangering his own throne.
He did, indeed, allow the Foreign Legion of Algiers,
consisting mostly of political fugitives, of whom he was
glad to be rid, to give the assistance of their bayonets
to a Government which, we are told, is the choice 9fthe
people, and yet which could not, in any shape, sustain
itself without foreihn aid ; but nothing could induce
him to imitate our Whig Government in sending any
French troops into that country to "co-operate" with
the legion of the redoubted General Evans and the
British Royal Marines. He has left to British valour
the undisputed, and we believe the unenvied, possession
of the laurels which it has won in the memorable fields of
Hernani, Fontarabia, and others equally glorious. His
late Minister, Thiers, who would have been the op-
pressor of the ancient liberties of Switzerland, if his
power were equal to his intentions, made great efforts
to persuade his Royal Master to Palmerstonize (if
we must coin a word) French policy in Spain. The
more sagacious Louis Philippe thought it better that
the Quadruple Treaty should be converted into waste
paper, like the famous protocols from the same hand,
than that French armies should be sent to imbibe des
mocratic instruction in the same school in which Scr-
jeant Garcia and the " heroes of La Granja" had
studied. The fate to which a military democracy has
forced the Queen of Portugal to submit, will not make
the King of the French more inclined than he was
previously to undertake the armed settlement of Spain.
Sound policy is that which would prevent a Govern-
ment from intermeddling in the internal concerns of
the
other people. It was that policy which the Whigs
atsid.levocated most vehemently when out of office ; it was
Policy which they proclaimed as their own, under
name of non-intervention, on their first acces-
ConyteontPioonwer .
ton
violated and it is the policy which they have
ever since,. from the disgraceful Anglo-G.allic
Spanish sucea
egsasiinst the King of Holland to the Jodi-
rect
and dishonest
interference in the war of the
on.—Morning Herald.
The internal affairs of Malta, at the departure cf
the last packet, on
whose energies
destructive are
•
Ministers,
the 3d instant, according to our
private letters, were by
no
n means improved. Our
absorbed
principleb y anat ende a-
Your to carry on thehome,
have had of late but little time to bestow on distant
objects ; and, the steps they have
adopted, in the hope
of allaying the discontents at Malta, have a, been of
a_o
that left-handed nature that give no to the
thaniea
generality of the people. It is now m
since the first incendiary pamphlets were seet t ayi
out
from
this country, and were achnitted to free circulation
there, and have been permitted to inflame the minds
of many up to the present time, unrepressed and isas
contradicted by the Government. As a pretended re.

ITN, LONDON, TH

needy for these evils the liberty of the Press was soon
after promised ; but this was hailed as a boon only by
those whose object was strife and contention. The
Liberty of the Press cannot be made palateable to that
purely Roman Catholic population unless it could be
softened down by a religious censorship, and this
Lord Glecelg, as an English Minister, and a Pro-
testant dare not do, nor has he had the courage
for seven or eight months, during which the sub-
ject has been pending, to come to a decision upon it.
The state of the law in Malta has long been a sub-
ject of complaint ; and here, too, the incapacity of
the Colonial department is illustrated, and a proof
afforded of the folly of allowing the moral force of
authority to be weakened by supineness. Things
are come to such a pass that the people hesitate to
accept even of an amelioration from a Government
that has yielded to dictation and debasement. An
improved and clear system of criminal law, which had
been many years in preparation, under the direction of
Lord Glenelg's predecessors, and the elements of which
were very generally approved, before these disorders,
having now received his Majesty's approbation, was
lately promulgated. But how has this been met ?
By the distrust of the people, excited by the open
opposition of a few Radical lawyers, the scum of the
profession, who are, of course, attached to the cor-
rupted mass of the confused and almost unintelligible
old legislation ; for this was the carrion upon which
they thrived. It is true that the appointment of a
Mr. Austin as Chief Commissioner for the affairs of
Malta had been publicly made known, from which
some persons foolishly hoped a speedy relief from the
present state of things. But, contemporaneously with
this announcement, a report was circulated by the corn
merchants, upon the authority of a letter from Sir G.
Grey, that Mr. Ewart had obtained for them a promise
that they should have the uninterrupted supply of
corn to the inhabitants. If this important question
be thus decided in Downing-street, without inquiry,
and without consulting the feelings of the people, but
merely as a concession to the friends of the Ministry,
what has become of the boasted liberality, the
thousand times repeated free Government prin-
ciple, the beautiful song of popular controul,
by chaunting which the present men raised
themselves into power ? For what purpose is Mr.
Austin and his colleagues to go out to Malta,
if so principal a point can be settled without investiga-
tion on the spot ? The corn question of Malta was
dispassionately explained in our paper of the 29th of
July last. The unpopularity of trusting to merchants,
where they are few, for the supply of bread to a whole
population, is, from various letters we have seen, now
more manifest than ever ; and we have no hesitation in
saying that, if the Commissioners do their duty ho-
nestly, they will soon convince the Noble Secretary
for the Colonies that he must not commit the well-baing
of his Majesty's loyal subjects in Malta. to the tender
mercies of lawyers and monopolizers of corn, unless he
is ready to sacrifice altogether the confidence which the
people once had in the British Government, and with-
draw that protection to which they are entitled by pro-
raises made to them at various times—a protection
which has reference to the schemes of internal plotters
as well as of external enemies. We have already ex-
pressed our opinion that the real grievance of the, peo-
ple of Malta is, that they are abandoned to the views
of a faction—an anti-English party, whose object is
revolution, and who are working against the hest jute-

rests of their country—nihil patriunt nisi nomen ;
and to such a set our Ministers lend a wiliing ear, for
the sake of courting one or two votes in Parliament,
which they know full well that they cannot afford to
lose. The social condition of the great bulk of the
people—the loyal and peaceable classes—finds no
sympathy in the breasts of a Whig-Radical Cabinet.
—Morning Post.
The address of Sir William Molesworth to the elec-
tors of East Cornwall has produced, as we antici-
pated, a considerable sensation throughout the coun-
try ; and, if we may judge from the 'limes of yester-
day, the Tories see in the local differences between the
two sections of Reformers, which it indicates, symp-
toms of permanent division between the Whigs and
Reformers. When the correspondence between Sir
John Rashleigh and Sir William appears, we shall then
be in possession of the grounds on which the assertion
respecting the Whigs of East Cornwall was made.
But, whatever may have been the case in East Corn-
wall, we trust Reformers in general will not commit the
unspeakable folly implied in the defence of the New-
castle electors, so well pointed out by Mr. O'Connell,
of supporting those from whom they differ altogether,
rather than those from whom they differ on some
points. " With the differences,' says the Times," be-
tween this gentleman (Sir William) and Sir John
Rashleigh, upon a point stated by the former, viz.
his assertion that some of the Whig aristocracy had
withdrawn their support from him because of his de-
termination to reform (that is, to annihilate or per-
vert from its constitutional functions) the hereditary
House of Lords—with any difference arising out of
that assertion we have nothing to do. The reform
of the House of Lords,' in the actual condition of the
mind of England upon constitutional questions, may,
thank God, be regarded as the cry of maniacs, rather
than reasonable statesmen." The reform of the House
of Lords will become necessary if that House be found
an invincible obstacle in the way of all other reform.
We have at the same time uniformly admitted that, lli
the present state of the public mind, no Ministry
would, however inclined, feel themselves justified in
proposing such a reform as a Government measure.
The people of England are averse to organics'
changes, and many most respectable Reformers be-
lieve that the Lords may yet have their eyes opened to
the danger to themselves of running counter to
public opinion. The question of Peerage Re-
form, however, is one which the public are en-
titled to discuss, and no Reformer ought to object to
the most extensive inquiries as to the mode by
which the present collision between the two Houses
can be terminated. We can conceive no more
dangerous doctrine than that people ought to remain,
with their arms crossed, passive spectators of the scenes
enacting in the House of Lords. To tell the people
that the Lords are determined that the Reform Bill
shall be a dead letter—that measures of improvement
may pass the Commons, but will be thrown out as a
matter of course in the Upper House—that this state
of things must be submitted to with patience—is, in
fact, to proclaim that the Constitution is a dead let-
ter, and that the Lords are the sovereign masters of
the nation. If the people of England could be brought
to listen with patience to such language, we should
despair of the destinies of the country. No ; the
Conservatives are not to be combatted by means which
engender apathy or indifference. A careful analysis of
the lists of Conservative voters will show that they have
few disinterested supporters ; but let the people be
taught that there is no cure for the disease which now
disturbs the action of the Constitution, and you take
from them the motive for generous sacrifices in support
of Reform principles, and swell the Conservative
ranks. The question, how is the collision between the
two Houses to be overcome ? is not, therefore, a
question which can safely be evaded. Peerage Re-
form appears to many Reformers the only mode of
solving the difficulty. But, if any other mode can be
suggested, let it be laid before the public. All we
contend for is, that the public interest ought to go for
something, and that the Reformer who has no project
foafulhtilsviotwhnthofosre who
meetinseek in goodgthediffieu faithlty foraught modenott o
o fi ndf
restoring efficiency to the Constitution. The Leeds
Mercury has, we trust unintentionally, misrepresented
the course we have pursued with respect to Peerage
Reform. That paper on Saturday last observes, "
Morning Chronicle, the Spectator, and Mr. O'Con-
nell, all declare, in strong terms, that the dissolution of
the union among Reformers would bring the Tories
into power. Yet they all press on this question, which
will as certainly divide the Reformers as the Catho-
lic Question divided the Tories, and as certainly be
fatal to them. But then they say that Ministers and
their friends ought to prevent this division by becom-
ing Peerage Reformers." We never said any such
thing ; on the contrary, we have always declared that
Ministers ought to follow, not to outrun, public opi-
nion in regard to this particular question. But we
would ask the Leeds Mercury in what way it is pos-
sible to preserve union among Reformers by excluding
from discussion the means of overcoming obstacles to
reform ? Circumstances, and not individuals, press on