The Sun.
London, England, 1836-09-27 00:00:00

SPIRIT OF THE PUBLIC JOURNALS•

In the letter of Mr. Wentworth Beaumont to Mr.
O'Connell, enclosing the munificent subscription of
1001. to the " Justice Rent," the corruptionists have
discovered another grievance. The subscription, large
as it is, they would forgive ; but the letter, which ap-
peared yesterday in the communication of our Dublin
correspondent, has thrown the factious prints into a
rage little short of frenzy. The Morning organ of the
Carlton clique has vented upon the Honourable Mem-
ber for Northumberland no small portion of the spleen
which has been evidently stirred up in its conductors
by Mr. O'Connell's late letter. After announcing the
fact—so unpalatable to the interested abettors of abuses
—that an English representative,—the representative,
too, of an agricultural constituency, and a gentleman
of large fortune, who would be exposed by a convul-
sion► to greater loss than some score of those Peers
who played an obstructive game during the last ses-
sion, and is, consequently, in the same proportion more
interested in the preservation of public order than
these lords of ruined fortune or of no fortune at ail,
save what they receive from the public purse,—after
announcing the fact that this English Member of
Parliament has not only sympathized with the insulted
and oppressed people.of Ireland, but given solid proof
of his sincerity in advocating equal justice for the
sister country, the notorious journal says—
" We are not sure that this or any similar act on the part
of the Hon. Gentleman would justify the animadversions
of a public journalist, were Mr. Beaumont to content
himself with doing what he likes with his own.' But when
in addition to his peculiar munificence in support of the
treacherous, not to say treasonable, views of a political ad•
venturer, he himself stands forward as the expounder of the
public views and sentiments of Newcastle and Northumber-
land generally,•we may be pardoned if we consider his let-
tci rather with reference to the adventitious distinction of
the writer than to the intrinsic merit of the document
itself."

The first !sentence of this extract would, if anything
that is said' by the writers in question could, excite
surprise. Who forgets the attacks of the aforesaid
journal upon 'the Duke of Newcastle for using, in re-
ference to certain electors at Newark the memorable
words that are quoted above? We suppose the apos-
tate is preparing the way for a defence of the Noble
Duke, and of other Tory Lords who act upon the
Noble Duke's maxim, of doing what he likes with his
o;v11. The sentence we have marked in italics looks
exceedingly like a feeler —put forth to try how
far it would be safe to defend the conduct of those
Tory landlords who trample, or intend to do so,
upon the provisions, and insult the spirit of the
Reform Bill, by either coercing. their enfranchised
tenantry to vote against their own conscientious
opinions in favour of Tory candidates, or visiting
them with vengeance for • daring to use their electoral
right as becomes free Britons. We pass, however,
from this point for the present, merely wishing the
'public to keep it in their recollection. Well then,
Lord Lyndhurst's tool would'allow'Mr. Beaumont to
do what he likes v:ith his own,—it would obligingly
.permit him to spend his fortune in such a way as to
•hims'elf. may seem meet,—a liberality and condescen-
' for ''which, no doubt, the Honourable Member
will feel. gilateful ; but then he has had the audacity to
accompany his splendid subscription with a letter ex-
pr:7ssing his sympathy for the wronged people of Ire-
land, and his concurrence in the measures recom-
mended by is O'Connell to his countrymen, and by
them adopted.for the achievemmt of their rights, and
the overthrow of their corrupt and insolent oppressors,'
ani explanatory. of the causes which occasioned the
re;nrii of an opponent of Reform for the boronah of

Nowcastle-upon-Tyne ; and for this he must
hatted; by the. executioners of ch&acter, who pursue
that.. teputable avocation in, Printing-house. square.
Beaumont; forsooth, is ioconsistent, and also the
. witness of- Ida ovi.-n inconsistency ! And haw doss all
this appear ? Why • the Honourable Member, found
flitrit with Mr..Otlimell's attacks . upon the House
OF Lords in -his mission through the North of -Eng-
land' and SCotland in the summer of 1835, and -now
lie,(Mr.'BeatiniOnt) subscribes 100!'. towards the rum!.
O'COnnell has on ,-inatad- for the purpose'
(-4,lqtaforeing the legal and riglitful ck'ini of Ireland for
equaljusticc--for that useful reform of her municipal
inhitutions—these,.in their present shape, reservoirs
of all manner of 'aiAraination, which has been intro-
titt,'ed into the Britilkorporate system with such ex-
cellent cffcct ! Herein- consists the inconsistency of
the Hon. Member for Northumberland. Last year
he. took exception to Mr. O'Councll's proceedings ;
for then the Lords lic4.not proved by their factiousness,
their selfishness, their bigotry, and their corrupt prac-
tices, 'now just were Mr. O'Connell's attacks upon
their injurious privileges. This year Mr. Beaumont
approves the proceedings of the Irish leader, be-
(lll.lse the Peers in the late session obstructed almost
all necessary and useful legislation—because they
abused their privileges to the grievous detriment of the
people--7beeause they perilled the peace of the United
Kingdom, and jeopardised the integrity of the empire.
While it was imagined that the Peers would conform to
the spirit of the times, and square their conduct with the
altered constitution of the House of Commons, Mr.
O'Connell had but few supporters in his attacks upon
the House of Lords. • The case is different now -Lord
Lyndhurst has raised up thousands of allies for Mr.
O'Connell in the war he menaces upon the mis-
chievous irresponsibility of the hereditary Legislators.
When it is seen and felt that the present constitution
of that legislative assembly is incompatible with good
Government, is hostile to the interests of the people,
and to the peace of the country—and this is now the
conviction of thousands of British subjects in every
grade of life, who twelve months ago were'deeply im-
pressed with the opposite opinion—Mr. O'Connell's
call for reform of the House of Lords finds a cheerful
response in numerous quarters of the empire, where •
last year it was either laughed at as a caprice, or de-
nounced as revolutionary. Without taking upon us
to class Mr. Beaumont in the category of Peerage
Reformers, we hesitate not to assert that the conduct
pursued last session by the Obstructives, headed by a
reckless renegade who cannot lose anything by a con-
vulsion—their rejection, or pernicious mutilation of
nearly all those beneficial Bills for the improvement of
the condition of Great Britain and Ireland which the
King's Ministers either framed or supported, and the
representatives of the people approved—their factious
opposition to the present popular Administration,
because it is di'sposed and anxious to- ameliorate the
condition of the people, to extend their rights and for-
tify their privileges—their headlong support of every
abuse in our institutions—their inveterate antipathy to
all reform, no matter how glaring the defect, and how
necessary the remedy,—this conduct of the Tory
Lords, we repeat, has completely negatived any charges
of inconsistency that might be advanced against the
Member for Northumberland, and hundreds of thou-
sands of others who, like him, differed from Mr.
O'Connell last year, and are now his zealous sup-
porters. These are perfectly consistent. Reformers
interweave sly diits-
h
at all times, they cannot consent to the perpetuation of
abuses, though the. Peers have dexterovt:
ivlyile andcres w
erectly contrived to their own
corruption, so that both must now stand or sink' toge-
ther. We at once admit
.that Mr. O'Connell is not
• " less loud in his demonstrations as regards the
Peerage of England than he was when he forced Mr.
Beaumont° to speak very unceremoniously' against
the expediency of his agitation." On the contrary,
his denunciations are louder. But then they were
comparatively, unheeded—now they arc more generally
listened ~to :and approved. The Lords may thank.
- themselves alone for popularising, by the proceed-
‘inas 'of - last Session, Mr. O'Connell's denuncia-
r*tions against hereditary legislation. It was in
their power to blunt his weapons, and they have
pointed his arrows. They might, had they been
wise and virtuous, make him utterly powerless, and
they have invested him with immense power. Had
they done justice, he would be impotent in any at-
tempt to do them harm—they did injustice from a
glaringly factious motive, and outraged justice will
overthrow them. When they shall have succeeded in
4,,tifying their misconduct, it will be time enough for
Mr. Beaumont to vindicate his consistency—a quality
doubtless, it well becomes the most barefaced,
impudent
apostate that ever disgusted mankind to
talk about.—Morning Chronicle.
There is beyond all question no country on earth
vibere more deception has been successfully practised,

or more grievous mischief accomplished, than in Ire-
land by the mere abuse of epithets. If the " Liberal" •
dictionary of that island were brought into juxtaposition
with Johnson's, or any other in use amongst ourselves,
we apprehend that no further evidence would be re-
quired to prove the truth of the much-canvassed ob-
servation, that the English people and the Irish are
with respect to each other " aliens," at least " in
speech." We defy even an Irishman of the last
generation to understand without a glossary the
Irish nomenclature of the present. 'What, for in-
stance, some fifty or sixty years ago was meant by
the phrase " the Irish nation ?" Why, the Irish
nation was then, by the loudest patriots of that
time, considered to embrace-Ist, the whole Protes-
tant community (being synonymous with the property
and intelligence of Ireland) ; and next, the Roman
Catholic body, being the uneducated and the mor.
But in the jargon now current, ''the Irish nation" ex-
cludes the great bulk of intelligence, property, and
Protestantism, assuming that few, if any, deserve
the name of Irishmen who possess any one of the
above qualifications, and even among the uneducated
or ill-provided Papists comprehending none but those
who are willing to make themselves tools of turbulence
and rebellion. In the last century " justice to Ireland"
was meant by Mr. Grattan, and other enlightened
lovers of their country, to signify an extension to that
country of free trade with England and with the British
colonies, and the abolition of- that invidious law which
subjected every act of Irish legislation to the fiat of a
Parliament wherein Ireland had no representatives. But
each port of Ireland many years ago acquired a free
trade with England and her colonies, as absolute as
that which has ever been enjoyed by the metropolitan
port of London ; and instead of being subjected to
Poyning's law, Ireland has herself the right of rejecting
through her representatives, laws which the represen-
tatives of Great Britain may be ever so willing to pas 3
for the Government of the people of Great Britain.
What is the meaning of " justice to Ireland" at this
moment, in the sense of those parties who are most apt
to use the expression ? It does not mean " free trade,'
for that she has.; nor a fair portion of legislative power,
for of that an unfair portion, as is well known, a certain
class of her mis-representatives have long been exer-
cising. No; the change -of language has in nothing
been more marked or significant of other changes
than in this much-hacknied term ; it means invest-
ing one particular denomination of Irishmen with a
power of inflicting unlimited persecution upon all the
rest. It means confessedly, as employed by the aspi-
rant faction, that their leaders shall be permitted, under
the name of "religious freedom," to strip the minis-
ters of a religion, the whole progress of which has
been accompanied by a concomitant growth and enjoy-
ment of civil right, and which has been endowed for
centuries with a fixed interest in the soil, of the re-
venue which has for the same period supported them,
and to transfer it and more to the ministers of an
hierarchy which scoffs at and tramples on the very
name of "religious freedom,". whenever it has in its
own hands the means of crushing the professors of other
creeds. It means, that all warning shall be thrown aside
and all history forgotten ; that the old and inseparable.
union of " Popery and' slavery" shall be stigmatized
by Act of Parliament as a fictrOn of our - puerile an-
cestors, who bled and burned under their joint domi-
nion; that a sham democracy shall, in Ireland, be re-
ceived as the small end of that wedge, of which the
real thick end, to be driven in hereafter, is a subtle,
rapacious, and domineering priesthood. The term
" justice .to Ireland" means yet more. than a total
sweeping away of the temporal Protestant-Church—it
means that in every town of • the island there shall,
under the name of Cornoratibn, be an organised band
of fiscal robber::, of local tyrants, and licensed insur-
gents, to carry on, in all directions, under the guidance
of the priests, the oppression of Protestantism, and of
attachment to the law, and to familiarize the imaaina-
tion of a fierce and unscrupulous multitude with fresh
schemes of violence and confiscation, discussed and
insisted on at every ,municipal meeting. " Justice
then to Irelanris equivalent to the conqueror's excla-
mation of " tth victis." The Papists having won
the victory, clamour fora prompt division of the
spoil. How often has it been represented, and how
truly, :that if Corporations were in reality a nuance,
the House of Lords passed a Bill for abating them—
that if tithes in their existing form were a grievance, the
House of Lords passed a bill for commuting them ! It
was the Popish 'faction that rejected these two great
remedies ; and why ? Because they wanted not .to
get rid of a corporation nuisance but on condition of
creating a worse—because they wanted not to commute
tithe, but to abolish it, and with 'it the Protestant
Church Establishment. They have now got up a new
society, which, under the name of justice, means inti-
midation, and they promote its objects by the old in-
strument of money. It is an amusing and characteris-
tic shuffle of O'Connell, that when it was proposed
the other day to report the expenses of the new Society,
as well as the receipts, the crafty agitator would not
hear of it. Oh no I encourage subscriptions as much
as you will by publishing (or exaggerating) their
amount, but you must not attempt anything so mon-
strous as telling the world how " I, the First Lord of
the Rebel Treasury, dispose of any part of the money."
Mr. O'Connell fancies that he may have contested
elections to stand, or petitions to resist, for false re-
turns of some half-dozen sons and nephews whom he
has already foisted into Parliament, and hopes so to
elevate after another dissolution. Funds must, there-
fore be at hand. "Oh I no—by no means pub-
lish what I do with the money." By the way,
there is no bad- sample of the character and en-
croachments of these, lawless associations recorded
among their proceedings. The new " General Asso-
ciation," among its other other attributes of a freedom-
loving body, exercises pretty liberally those of inqui-
sitor-general. There is not a gentleman or lady,
named or alluded to before this promiscuous assem-
blage, of whom it is not demanded or asserted, whe-
ther they have registered their tenants or not—whether
they have displayed that testimonial of their zeal and
love of justice—or whether they must be written to,
snubbed, sneered at, and in what form they are to be
coaxed or bullied, how the sugar-plum is to be dis-
posed, and how the lash is to be administered ; yet do
Noblemen, calling themselves Whig Noblemen, sub-
mit to this species of outrage. There are notes pur-
porting to be from some of them, high in connection
with the Melbourne Cabinet, who are said (we trust
falsely) to have answered questions and given assur-
ances touching the registration of their tenantry—that
is, as to the management of their own estates ; and it
is perfectly beautiful to see, with how little ceremony
the titled and estated slaves of the political Obeah are
handed over to their daring,,, and dark tormentors. As
for the boasted tranquillity of Ireland and its freedom
from crime, there were recorded in our yesterday's
columns a catalogue of savage and ferociousvit one of
that would vie with those of any period, but
open rebellion.— Times.
The anomalous position in which Sir 'William
Molesworth finds himself placed is not peculiar to
himself. There are many other Members of the House
Commons in a similar predicamkt. Nor is this any-
thing new. The circumstance has occurred on re-
peated occasions within the last few years. What is
the position—what the predicament in question ? It
is this—Sir 'William Molesworth and other Members
of the House of Commons find that because they have
exceeded rather than fallen short of the promises they
made on the hustings, the more timid and trimming
Reformers, who supported them in the first instance,
have
they have
resolved
electionshall ' '''
Tother -
on opo-ina them whenever another
take place. _n words, because
of their
acted honestly and fearlessly in the attesta-
tionare to be rewarded ,
is certainly aPrinciples and the people's. rights,
most Pith
must be something r„t. .
country which could they
ejection from their seats. This
mortifying state of things—there
a
ran in the representation of that
tolerate such an anomaly for a
moment. It is of importance to observe that Sir Wil-
liam Molesworth and those who are similarly
circum-
stanced, are not placed in their anomalous
position
'e People aenerally ; it is
, comparatively, of
portion of their themselvesoais,lyregaasrrdesgatih.desmselvesaii d the a
the suffrage more
that suffrage is
so circumscribed that a handful nore extended, matters
Were
con-
stituents.
would be all right. It is only
milk-and-water Reformers, are able to turn the
scale
against them. How is the evil to be. remedied ? It
may be done in two way's. We
..have just glanced at

one of these—the extension of the suffrage. Enlarge
the constituencies, and the small lot of personages
calling themselves Reformers, but who are, in fact, only
a species of modified Tories, who do so much mischief
at elections by forcing on the people the alternative of
either choosing one of their own stamp, or suffering a
Tory to be returned ; extend, we say,. the suffrage,
and these men will at once be reduced to comparative
nonentities, considered as politicians. We speak not
now of universal suffrage. Household suffrage, in
favour of which public opinion is now rapidly growing,
would answer the purpose. But there is a yet more
simple remedy for the grievous evil ; and because of
its simplicity and its undoubted efficiency, it is of the
two the favourite with us. That remedy consists in
two words, " The Ballot." Give us this, and we ask
no more. With this moral lever we will perform won-
ders in the political world. With the ballot Sir Wil-
liam Moleswerth would find his seat secure—so would
every honest representative. To this complexion it
must come at last : the sooner it does so the better.
The man who opposes the ballot we shall always re-
gard, however lofty his pretensions, as a very questiona-
ble Reformer.—/V/Orning Advertiser.
The restless and reckless political party, whose ap-
petite for " organic changes" in the Constitution
seems to be quite insatiable, attack the House of Lords
upon two distinct grounds. The first is that the House
of Lords has rejected Bills of which this party ap-
prove—in other words, it refuses to be guided by them
and, therefore, say they, a reform of that House is
evidently necessary. The second ground is, that the
House Of Lords is an irresponsible body of legislators,
and as responsibility is necessary to good conduct on
the part of legislators, an alteration in the Constitu-
tion of the House of Lords is a necessary Reform.
The first of these grounds of attack resolves itself into
gross presumption, and is unworthy of discussion ;
the second has excited some attention, and it is as well
that the public should have some distinct and settled
opinion upon the subject. It has lately been contended
that the Lords are responsible to the public like every
other member, or body of members of a sane commu-
nity, who have duties to discharge and privileges to
maintain with equity and moderation. Their respon-
sibility, it is said, consists in this, that if they grossly
neglect their duties or commit outrages in the exercise
of their privileges, the public indignation will interfere
and provide at once a remedy and a punishment.
Without disputing the correctness of this theory, as
regards extreme cases, we own that we regard it as
rather too violent a view of the matter for the ordinary
circumstances of legislation, and we are disposed to
meet the charge of irresponsibility which is brought
against the House of Lords in a different way. There
is a class of unhappy per Sons whose levity is the most
sorrowful thing that a good man can contemplate in
this world, and to whom it is perhaps in vain to speak
of the responsibility which all men owe to their
Creator for the just discharge of their duties. They
tell us, with a sneer, that they cannot trust in a re-
sponsibility which is to operate only beyond the grave.
But even they will scarcely deny that there is such a
thing as conscience. They will acknowledge that a
good reputation is not a mere phantom of the imagina-
tion ; and more readily still will they admit that self-
interest is not forgotten by the aristocratic part of the
community. Now it seems to. us that . the responsi-
bility of the House of Lords is, that which we owe to
conscience, to character, and to their own interests,
which is so intimately bound up with the prosperity of
the nation. We do not think this insufficient. In a
country possessing such laws as those of Great Britain,
such habitual freedom of thought, and, above ail, so
much liberty and opportunity 'foe the dissemination of
opinion, we very much doubt whether the wit of man
could devise a better- responsibility for public men than
that which we have described. At all events, our Consti-
tution
recognises no other in the Members of either
House of Legislature, and that is the point to which
we are anxious at present to draw the attention of our
readers. The " irresponsibility" of the House of
Lords has been 'started as a convenient catch-word, to
fit the mouths of habitual sailers against the Conti-
tution under which they live, without giving diem the
fatigue of any thought, in order to find out a grievance
for themselves. The truth is, that if there be any sub-
stance in the complaint, it applies just as much to one
House of Parliament as the other, and they who bring
it forward either do so in ignorance, or must intend to
go much further than a reform in the House of Lords.
They cannot have such a responsibility as they seem
to require, until the Legislature shall consist of " De-
puties" of the people, bound by the Constitution to
act in conformity with the will of those who elect them,
and liable to punishment if they do not do so. At
present this is not the state of the circumstances
of either House of Parliament, nor do we see any
thing deserving the name of responsibility to the
people which exists more in the House of Commons
than in the House of Lords. A Member of the
House of Commons is by no means bound, either
in law or in honour, to act in conformity with the
political opinions of those who have elected him.
He generally does so, not because his votes.is dictated
by them, but because his opinion agrees with theirs.
This is certainly the theory of the Constitution,
according to all the best authorities. A Member of
the House of Commons is not elected as a deputy to
express the opinions of his constituents, but as a
Representative, to exercise. his own judgment, not
merely for the good of his constituents, but for the
common weal of° the whole realm. It is true that in
modern times some mean and slavish-minded persons,
unfit for that reason to be members of any powerful
and august assembly, have voluntarily come under en-
gagements to their constituents, as unconstitutional as
they were degrading ;- but such bise exceptions have
nothing to do with time general rule regarding the re-
sponsibility of Members of the House of Commons.
If there were in theory any such responsibility, doubt-
less some power would have been provided for carrying
it into practical effect. But there is no such thing ;
nor, let the conduct of a Representative be ever so
disagreeable to his constituents, have they any power
either to punish or to displace him. When the Parlia-
ment is dissolved, and the connection of the Member
with those who elected him has ceased, they may refuse
to renew that connection, but they can in no way call
their Member to account for what he has done. It
may he urged that the power of rejecting a Member
at a future election, does operate in practice like a
formal responsibility to the electors. This is, however,
not a legal but an accidental responsibility ; and there
are other things which operate as an accidental re-
sponsibility with the Members of the House of Lords,
such as a desire to stand well with the people in
the districts to which they belong, and several other
points which might be enumerated. But it altogether
depends upon circumstances whether the fear of not
being elected by the same constituency at a future elec-
tion will have any effect upon a Member of the House
of Commons. It is by no means an uncommon thing
for a Member to be utterly indifferent whether the same
constituency will elect him again or not. Nay, in many
cases, a Member is quite resolved that he will not ask
to be re-elected. In such a case where is the responsi-
ass
s the
hioß nof
bility of the Member of one House more than another?
responsibility?
sie,fiotrexample, that Mr. Blamire knew very
well that the part which he took regarding the Titheßuil in theil l
shouldlastthat which
be Session was exceedingly disagreeable
to the electors of East Cumberland, where was his
e He
had,
would
carried. n H
no doubt,come
omeeh at
(oal
passverym
all shrewda
proba-
bility, r
soob oao-
bility, a very
Tithe Commissioner, and, that
erebfeore,
b woulde i madnboeva
bloe
of
a
snissioner ; and if the electors as
toturs
ofTTIaCCe a
ulmberll'altnhde
hCado:nin-
the mean time run up any account of responsibility
against him, they might go whistle for its payment.
Putting conscience and character out of the question,
he
pils au equally
e Blyut independentconsoiconscience
andof otheirara
character
scuariemajntd be
their
aput
out of the question by British noblemen and gentle-
men, and hence it is that while we have noblemen
gentlemen as legislators, we need not alarm our-
selves about the want of more formal and sts.tutable
responsibility.—Mor „ 22112 a Herald.
So wretched have been the practical restf.ts of Mi-
nisterial, or Whig-Radical, policy, all over the world,
that, when a party of Ministerialists or Radicals
get together they do not so much as ventnie to
allude to those results. Their declamation uniformly
consists of indignant lamentation concerning what they