The Sun.
London, England, 1841-12-01 00:00:00

PUBLIC OPINION.

The Times still continues to harp on its favourite
theme, Mr. O'Connell's political delinquencies, ob-
serving : " One word upon O'Connell's conduct towards
Lord De Grey's Government, and we are done. The
Right Hon. firebrand has, by his announced motion for
the dismissal of that nobleman, brought himself into
serious difficulties. Had the maker of the motion been
merely a private person, such as the Member for Kerry,
the projected movement would necessarily have deserved
immediate inquiry. But Mr. O'Connell, who gravely
and deliberately makes this motion, is the Lord Mayor
of the Irish metropolis. Substantially it amounts to
an impeachment of Earl De Grey's Administration.
Let him be compelled then either to Mow up his
villanous motion in the usual formal way, or to skulk
back from it as a malignant and unsupported slan-
derer. Let us have his articles of indictment so-
lemnly set forth, sworn to, and established. His
municipal Lordship is, by office, a highly influential
personage. His declared opinion of Earl, De Grey, as
far as it carries any weight, is virtually an incitement,
ex cathedra, to every sort of insubordination, as long as
the present Viceroy is unsuperseded. O'Connell, there-
fore, ought to be compelled to make good his case."—
It by no means follows—as the Times would
imply—that Mr. O'Connell's opposition to the Irish
Government is an incitement to every species of
insubordination. He has as much right, on every
principle of justice, to express his opinion boldly
and unreservedly on Earl De Grey's policy, now that
he is Lord Mayor of Dublin, as he had when he was
simply Mr. Daniel O'Connell, M.P. His acceptance of
the civic chair, which he owes to no Government pa-
tronage, does not necessarily compel him to hold • his
tongue on political matters. He is as unshackled a man
as ever he was, and we respect him for stating boldly
what he feels warmly.
The Post says—" Among the hasty crowd who vehe-
mently oppose the law which guards British agriculture
from foreign competition, it is a common thing to assert
that this is a law to make one class pay snore than they
need pay in order to enrich another class. If it were
possible to induce the persons who make this assertion
to lay aside inveterate prejudice, there would not be much
difficulty in showing them with what little reason this
assertion is made. In the first place such an assertion
is unfair as a matter of argument, because it begs the
whole question in dispute between the friends and the
enemies of the Corn-law. It assumes that the enemies
of the law are right, and they who uphold the law
wrong, fur, undoubtedly, if the effect of the Corn-law
be merely to make one class pay with no other or better
reason than to give an advantage to another class, then
the Corn-law would be without a just foundation."—The
Post has here bit the right nail on the head. The Corn
law does make one class pay in order to give an advan-
tage to another class, and this is foremost among the
reasons why the country at large is so anxious for
its repeal.
We quote the following from the Herald :—"lt is not
necessary to notice the cutting reflections of the Glasgow
Saturday Post on the • economy of the Duke of Wel-
lington in refusing to subscribe to the find solicited by
the Paisley Deputation. If the subject were one of less
grave and mournful interest, or if the opinions of the
Journal in question could be identified/with that of the
city in which it is published, we would suggest a reason-
able test of the practical equity and efficiency of the ex-
periment which the Paisley deputation has come upwards
of 400 miles south to try—by recommending the Spital-
fields' weavers to launch a deputation to go in quest of
funds for the alleviation of their distress 400 miles north.
To make the analogy of the one deputation to the.

MORNING SUN