The Sun.
London, England, 1849-05-19 00:00:00

Upper House, the subject is again reverted to of
" overturning the Government"—
" As to the existence of the Government, that is a
matter past caring for."

it may be all very well to endeavour to soften it
down by intimating that by " overturning the Go-
vernment" they merely mean a change of Adminis-
tration. The words have evidently a far deeper
meaning, coming, as they do, from a party' who have
already pointed to the combination for seizing upon
the tithes if they cannot obtain a corn-law.

Would those who have no scruples as to robbing
the Church permit the Dynasty to stand in the way
of accomplishing their tyrannical projects ? That
they would not permit it to interfere between them-
selves and their darling object, is intimated in the
very newspaper from which we have been quoting,
which says :
" We all know that there are limits to forbearance—
that there is a term to patience the most exemplary,
and to submission tho most perfect—that men in the
colonies are not very different from men at home—that
however attached to the mother country, to its institu-
tions, to its laws, to its people—that however proud
of their connexion with the fortunes of the British em-
pire—however loyal, however reluctant to swerve from
their allegiance to a revered and beloved Sovereign—
there are considerations of person, family, property,
and honour, which override even all these generous sew.
timents."

True, the primary application of this was made to
Canada, but the parallel case is shown to be "at
home." A deep-thinking and sagacious observer and
writer on public events—one who looks with no
friendly eye on this revolutionary movement, has
pointed out the close connexions between affairs is
Canada and those which are passing in this country;
but here we have the analogy traced by the chief
actors themselves. The same writer who first
pointed to the connexion between Absolutism in the
colonies and in the mother country has directed
public attention to the remarkable fact of the arrival
of a bird of ill-omen on our shores, an elder and malign
branch of the reigning family EItNEST, of Hanover, at
this critical juncture. When the decision of a majority
of both Houses of Parliament is referred to as some-
thing beyond which there is to be an appeal; when
we are told, in however blunt a way, that there are
parties who " would not stand it much longer;" when
manifestoes are issued in the provinces, under the
walls of the baronial mansions of Noble Lords, who
are giving themselves out as leaders, calling upon
their tenantry and dependents to prepare for joining a
combination now forming in London ; when the de-
struction of the Church, or the seizure of the tithes
as one object of the combination, is declared with
cheers in the House of Lords, when " overturning the
Government," is set forth in their press as another
o')ject, and when certain of her Maiesre's subjects
in the colonies having risen in rebellion, sympathy
with the rebels is expressed by the mai- contents here,
and their course vindicated by showing that "there
are considerations" which supersede allegiance to
the Monarchy ! when simultaneously with this, a
suspicious looking character is introduced in the per-
son of a foreign Prince, pensioned by this country,
and claiming to exercise direct legislative powers in
one branch of the Legislature with a contingent re-
versionary claim to the throne, notwithstanding that
a constitutional oath declares "That no foreign
prince or potentate, hath or ought to hare any jurisdic-
tion in these realms"—when all these scenesand acts in
the great drama are passing, it mill behove the Go-
vernment to manifest their firmness and decision in
the only course which can secure the confidence of
the nation, and thus preserve all that is worthy of
preservation in our institutions. The substitution of
ERNEST and Bread Tax fur VICTORIA and Free Trade
is what all good men and true will earnestly contend
against.

The whole of the correspondence relating to the
Anglo-French mediation in the affairs of Sicily has at
length been presented to Parliament. It forms a folio
blue-book of nearly a thousand pages. We have hitherto
abstained from alluding to it, because it is our custom
to make ourselves acquainted with the contents of a
book before venturing to offer an opinion on it. Our
reactionary contemporaries, however, manage matters
in a much more compendious manner, and one of them,
adopting the usual reactionary tactics, of drawing
upon his imagination for his facts, fired off an article
on the subject, at a time that it was impossible
he could have read the correspondence, and
attempted, as all the advocates of the King of
NAPLES have throughout the controversy attempted,
to draw a comparison between the union of Sicily
with Naples, and the union of Ireland with England.
The cases are about as like as the cases of Mon-
mouth and Macedon. " There is a river in Macedon,
and there is a river in Monmouth," quoth the
sapient and choleric FLUELLIN. " Sicily is an island
and Ireland is an island," say the equally sapient
and equally choleric FLUELLINS of Politics, and
there in each case the resemblance ends. Ireland
was united to England by an Act of Parliament,
solemnly discussed in the Irish Legislature, and
adopted by a large majority in both Houses of
the Irish Parliament. Sicily, on the con-
trary, was united to Naples by a decree
of the KING, promulgated without the con-
sent of the Sicilian Parliament. Ireland was
united to England according to law; Sicily was
united to Naples contrary to law. The independence
of Ireland has never been guaranteed to her by any
other Power, consequently no foreign nation has any
right to interfere in her internal affairs. The inde-
pendence of Sicily and her constitution were solemnly
guaranteed to her by Great Britain, in return for per-
mission granted to her to hold military occupaof thattionof
Sicily during the war; and in consequence
hold
t a Great,to ex Br p
eli ttabi
en e was
nem ye nfarbo d
Egypt,to take
aa
nn
dd
tt
oo
render assistance to the Duke of WELLINGTON in
fSeprean nice; in
evennnthe
affairass 01fatseieaisly1Sl6the right
was
elaimeo
claimed by
byf
Greatinter-
Britain, and admitted by the King of NAPLES. Lord
CASTLEREAGH, in his note of 6th September, 1816,
addressed to Mr. A'Couar, the British Ministei
at Naples says—" His Royal Highness (the PRINCE
REGENT of England) would feel himself equally com-
pelled, however reluctantly, to interfere, if he had the
mortification to observe any attempt made to reduce
the privileges of the Sicilian nation in such a degree
as might expose the British Government to the re;
proach of having contributed to a change of system in
Sicily, which had in the end impaired the freedom
and happiness of its inhabitants, as compared with
what they formerly enjoyed ;" and that the changes
introduced into Sicily by the Neapolitan Government
have impaired the freedom and happiness of its inhabi-
tants is abundantly proved by the testimony of one
who was resident in Sicily from 1810 to 1814, who,
as son-in-law of the KING, took part in all the
transactions of that period, whose authority no
member of "the great Conservative party" will dare
gainsay; who is the " wise Monarch" of the Earl
of ABERDEEN, and the "illustrious friend" of Lord
BROUGHAM ; by the testimony of no less a personage
than Lours PHILIPPE himself. In the Parliamentary
Blue Book, page 16, No. 20, we find a dispatch from
the Marquis of NORMANBY, dated Paris, Jan. 27,
1848, in which the Noble Marquis reports a conver-
sation which he had with the KING of the FRENCH,
at his Majesty's own desire, on the affairs of Sicily.
" His language upon this subject," says the Marquis
of NORMANDY, " was most strong against the con•
duct of the Neapolitan Government. He said that
all the successive Sovereigns of Naples had committed
a series of wrongs upon the Sicilian people ever
since the island had been restored to them in
conjunction with the kingdom of Naples; they bad
violated the Constitution which they had promised
to uphold by destroying tho nationality which they
had engaged to maintain. The edict by which they
had suppressed the name of Sicily was most arbitrary.
His MAJESTY considered the title of King of the
United Kingdom of the Two Sicilies as nonsense, but
as having been devised for the insidious purpose of
getting rid of the Sicilian obligations by a side wind.
He stated also that there had been a systematic viola-
tion of an original engagement entered into by the
predecessors of the present SOVEREIGN at the time of
the original transfer of the island when they had pro-
mised that there should be only few employments held
by Neapolitans or Spaniards."
So much for the conduct of the Neapolitan Govern-
ment ; now as to the duty of Great Britain:; and here
again we will quote, not a Democrat, not a Repub-

* Page 5 ot. Cornalp,)nciene2 to 6;c:dial Al-
fairs, 1314-1816, presented to the House of Lords, in
pursuance to the address to her Majesty of April 27,
1849.