The Sun.
London, England, 1831-09-03 00:00:00

referring to this letter, says, with some naivete,
We must be permitted to say that the population
choose of the General have startled us not a little.
Surely, after all, chastity is a virtue." But with-
out entering into any discussion of the General's
checks, or entering into any inquiry into the founda-
tion of morals, we must be allowed to say, in homely
language, that he puts the cart before the horse. The
Irish, by his own account, are at the very bottom of
the social scale—without industry, content to live
without luxuries, like hogson straw in a hovel. In vein
he asks them, " what right have they, for their own
gratification, to bring possibly half a dozen of children
into the world, to be kept by those who are more
prudent ?" Whether they have a right or not, they will
continue for their own gratification to bring families
of children into the world.. If the misery which
they see around them were sufficient to deter them,
we might argue the question with reference to the
people themselves. But amidst constantly recur-
ring famines, the General himself tells us that the
cause of famines is in constant operation, for," in no
other country is there such a rage for early mar-
riages." And how should it be otherwise ? The
" upper and middle classes, who restrain them-
selves," to use the General's language, are in the
possession of certain enjoyments, which they prefer
to a hovel, and straw to lie on, and the gratification
of having six children; but a poor bog-trotter is
under no fear of lesipg any enjoyments by taking up
with his hovel and his straw, for lie has none, and
therefore embraces the gratification without hesita-
tion, unembarrassed as to the consequences of his
country—a consideration which never enters the
head of any labouring man in any country in the
world. General Cockburn may rest assured •that
the checks to which he so significantly alludes will
never be resorted to by any poor man, for the mere
good of his country. Leaving out of considetation
the question of morals, which we are not now dis-
posed to enter on, why, we ask, should a poor po-
tato-fed Irishman, who can everywhere obtain a
young wife to share his straw and his hovel, go
about cudgelling his brains to establish the recep-
tacles alluded to by the Gallant General P All con-
trivances have their origin in soma necessity, and
the Irishman is not under the necessity of resorting
to the contrivances alluded to. If General Cock-
burn had inquired into the causes of the difference
between the ethical systems of the countries
through which he has travelled, and the ethi-
cal system of Ireland, he would have found that
positive restrictions on marriage led to the prac-
tices he notices. In many parts of Switzerland the
laws of settlement are more severe than they ever
were in England, and indiscriminate marriages are
not allowed. In Bavaria, Wurternburg, and many
parts of Germany, no man is allowed to marry who
does not possess certain property qualifications. In
some of these countries the Magistrates have pro-
vieled establishments to guard against greater evils.
But every where it will be found that they are the
offspring of restraints imposed on the lower orders.
We observe that the Dublin Morning Register of
Wednesday last will have it that the Irish are not
lazy. We can only say, that all the English farmers
with whom we have spoken on the subject (and we
have spoken to many) give precisely the same ac-
count of them that General Cockburn gives. They
declare that no reliance is to be placed on them, ex-
cept when they are tasked—that when not tasked,
they require more watching than they are worth.
They are worth little as regular labourers ; and
their early habits easily account for this. But
be this as it may, we contend that the condition of
Ireland calls loudly for remedial measures. Some-
thing must be done to extricate the people from
circumstances which render them the most wretched
of the nations of Europe, a blot on the character of
the empire, and a nuisance to th&r neighbours. The
higher ranks have no right to shake themselves free
from all the consequences of the misery which mi-
nisters to their luxury. Poorerates will compel
them to fall on means to arrest the cause of an evil
which, if neglected, will overwhelm thew, We
would throw the maintenance of the poor, without
scruple, on the rich ; convinced that the rich will
sooner find means of keeping down the numbers of
he poor, than the poor will find means to bring
down the rich to their level. We conclude with the
following extract from General Cockburn's letter, in
which he charectesizes the scheme of Ministers for
relieving Ireland :
" But to show how people deceive themselves:—The
Ministers propose to lend 50,000/, on good security, and
with Commissioners, having, of course, good salaries ;
and there are men who thiak this will be a benefit. If
they would give themselves the trouble. to calculate, they
would find that if, instead of a loan on good security, it
sea. to be an absolute gift, it would not feed the starving
population in the West, at the lowest quantity of food, for
six weeks—though, as an aid in cases of such emergency,
it would, no doubt, be useful. But, instead GC granting
many thousand pounds to propagate the Gospel in foreign
parts, as was lately done, and at the same time grudging
and opposing the usual sum to that useful Institution,
3laynooth College, in our own land ; bow much better
it have been, to have given the propagating-money
to our Dublin INlendicity, or the at Irving population, and
left the foreign parts to take care of their own liou!s? It
is not elsy to continue-any confidence in a Ministry that
could allow such a measure; bad I been one of the col-
lective, I think I could have prevented this waste of the
public money. At all events, there should have been a
good tight for it. The poverty is certainly great; will
yet I doubt if the starvation, as it is aid, has occasioned
death from total want of food, though many have (lied
from the sickness occasioned by ;:ad and too scanty nom ish-
meut."..--Moriling Chrouiele.

Although we approve of the tact which Minis-
ters have of late displayed in discouraging any un-
necessary discussion upon the Reform Bill, as tend-
ing to cause deity, yet we cannot say that we alto-
gether admire the .-xtent to which, in some instances,
they seem disposed to carry their prudent principle
of non-resistance. Not to delay the Bill unnecessa-
rily is one thing, butt to precipitate it, without an-
swering any plausible objections which may have
been urged against particular par 's of the measure,
is another. We—who have from tik? beginning de-
precated all excitement relative to the 13;;;; and have
always argued that, as a measure of reason anj jus-
tice, it should be carried by that temperate and in-
telligent discussion which best promotes the triumpit
e reason—are of opinion that if, where capti-
vating sophistry or plausible arguments arc used
by the adversaries of the measure, the only reply
of Ministers is by the silent vote of a sweeping
majority, the accelerated velocity which the Bill
gains thereby in its progress through the House
may be dearly purchased by the effects which unan-
swered fallacies too often produce upon public opinion.
The Ministers should not fall into the mistake that
the whole people are divided into Reformers and
Anti-Reformers. There is a large middle class,
who may be said to have no fixed opinion on the
subject, and who wait to hear discussion, and to be
convinced by argument. It is very easy for the
violent supporters of the Bill to say " hurry it on
at all hazardii;" but we say, " let there be no :a-
iteceaary delay,
but let there be all necessary dis-
eussion"—so wilt those be convinced who would
otherwise be disgusted, and an accession of converts
will be gained to the measure through every step of
its progress. The class of persons of whom we
speak have been permitted of late to hear scarcely
any thing but what falls front one side, and they na-
turally begin to suspect that when Ministers content
themselves with saying nothing it is only because
they have nothing to say. The prudence of not aid-
ing the Opposition in their attempts to procrastinate
the great measure that is now before the House is
obvious, but the reasoning part of the public
will always recognise the difference between vexa-
tious and legitimate discussion ; and the Opposition
would do themselves as much mischief by provok-;
mg the one as the Ministers:may sometimes do by
avoiding the other. If they have the confidence ,
which they ought to have in thei tivitiatcctalfisedwhileh!
they have championed, they
upon the principle th4t the mosti-e"it(i.s discu,sedesasnYt;
the better it is understood, the mote acceptable it
will eventually be to the coontry----Obis we saY, re-
taining our opinion* the injurious consequenfes of
the division of comities, and the tahmsiflan ui faun

tenants at will to the elective franchise). But M;-
tnisters seem at present to act upon the opposite
principle, and to apprelecd that unless a decision
on each provision of the Bill be precipitated, the
ultimate success of the measure must be endangered.
Nor should Ministers suppose that an impression
fur good or for evil is not to be made on the House
of Lords, or, at least, on many Metr bers of that
House, by the discussion of the principles and details
of the Bill in the House of Commons. They should
hear in mind that the publication of the debates in
the Lower House put their Lordships, within a few
hours after they are uttered, in possession of
every argument used for and against the Bill,
in every stage of the proceeding. Thus every
discussion of the Bill in the House of Commons
may be considered also a discussion of it in the
House of Lords, inasmuch as it must make a moral
impression either for or against it among the here-
ditary legislators, who will hereafter have to decide
upon it. Let not, then, the Ministers, by follow-
ing the advice of intemperate, injudicious, or insin-
cere friends, furnish the adversaries of the Bill with
the most plausible of all the objections that can be
advanced against their own measure, and thus render
them more formidable than their own wisdom or
talents could make them. We know all that may
be said—and a gteat deal has been said—as to
causing delay ; but it is impossible that a great pro-
portion of the people of England should not reason
thus—" If the measure be a good one, it cannot
suffer by such delay as is necessary to refute the ar-
vuments used against it, or become the less likely to
be generally approved by its heing more fully and
clearly unfolded to the sober reason and calm good
sense of the country."—Morning Herald.