The Sun.
London, England, 1833-07-29 00:00:00

the case of Mr. E. Nugent, which Mr. O'Connell
adduced on Friday night as the justification of his
accusation against all the reporters of the Times—
that their reports were " designedly false :"
" 4, Parliament street, June 21, 1832.
" Mr. O'Connell feels that he owes it as a duty to
himself, and perhaps to others, to remonstrate with the
editor of the Times upon the circumstance, which has
now occurred for the second time, of assailing him in that
paper through the medium of pretended reports.
"Mr. O'Connell assures the editor of the Times, and
is ready to confirm his assertio❑ by the most solemn sanc-
tion, that the report of the speech attributed to him is,
with the exception of a few unimportant idea., a total and
most unfounded misstatement.

" He also is authorized by Mr. Hunt to contradict in
the same manner the speech attributed to him. Mr.
O'Connell has underlined part of the speech attributed to
Mr. Hunt, of which not one word, nor any idea border-
ing on such sentiments, was uttered by Mr. Hunt.
" The allusion is too plain to Le mistaken. Mr.
O'Connell thinks he could treat the foolish story to which
it alludes with silent contempt, as he has hitherto treated
it ; but had that allusion been made in the House of
Commons, he would certainly have found it his duty to
give it a quiet but most emphatic contradiction.
" He cannot bring himself to believe that the editor of
the Times, as a man of integrity and a gentleman, could
possibly countenance a proceeding of this description,—
the circulation of calumnies not uttered but put into the
mouth of a man quite innocent on this occasion of any
sort of connexion with them.

There is a very strong reason why Mr. Hunt should
not be the person to make any allusion to that calumny_..
he certainly did not do so.
" Mr. O'Connell is also authorized by Mr. Callaghan
to assert in the most positive manner that, short as is the
speech attributed to him, it contains matter totally different
from any thing he said.
" Under these circumstances, Mr. O'Connell, having:no
claim on the editor of the Times, but on the score of mere
justice, thinks himself entitled to this redress,—name'y,
that sufficient care should be taken to prevent the recur-
rence of similar attacks on him.

" Mr. O'Connell demands no retractation—he requires
no apology—he solicits no dismissal of any reporter. He
would feel unhappy if any being were to suffer for an injury
which he forgives. He is quite convinced that this occa-
sion will not be taken to aggravate the injustice done him
by the shape of any thing purporting to be an apology.
" Mr. O'Connell, however, does not shrink from any
mode of warfare that may be edopted against him, and
without deprecating hostility, and looking only for justice
in future in the mere matter of reporting, he feels that be
thus has discharged a duty, and rests content."

" 4, Parliament-street, June 21, 1832.
" Sir,—l venture to address you in your proper person,
because I have to ask a favour.

" Let me say by way of preface, that if the House had
continued to sit another half hour, I should have exonerated
the management' of the Times from all blame. I intend
to do so in my best manner to-morrow.

" I have seen Mr. Nugent, the reporter, and am quite
satisfied on the subject of the report. The favour I ven-
ture, therefore, to ask is, that you will overlook his error.
I should feel unhappy if I were the means of doing him
any injury.

" It is quite true that I can have no means of compen-
sating you in any mode for granting me this fivour, but 1
will not be the less sensible of it.

" Will you, then, allow me to say that if, on the whole,
you think 1 have any claim to have my feelings consulted,
you will comply with my request and grant me this favour?
" I have the honour to be, Sir, your very obedient ser-
vant, " DANIEL O'CONNELL."

" Thursday, June 21, 1832.
" Sir,—l have the honour to acknowledge the receipt
of two letters with your signature, which have been deli-
vered to-day at the Times office ; one addressed to the
editor of the paper, the other to Mr. —. You will, I
have no doubt, at once recognise the propriety of the an-
swer to your letters being written in the name of the editor.
In that character, therefore, I state most unequivocally,
that my indignation eve❑ exceeds yours at the gross mis-
representations which you have imputed to our reporter.
There are certainly many points on which you and the
conductors of the Times bold very different opinions, but
this very circumstance makes me peculiarly and sensitively
anxious that every word which falls from you should be
reported with the most scrupulous precision, and I should
treat any attempt to distort the expression of your opinions
as an act of intolerable baseness.

" If our reporter, Mr. E. Nugent, can satisfy you that
his error was unintentional, I shall be most happy for his
sake ; if you will further extend your kindness to him,
and declare your satisfaction as publicly as your charge,
I oh Xll feel that the journal is also exonerated from all
blame ; but unless this public declaration (which, how-
ever, I have no right to require) shall be made, it will be
impossible for Mr. Nugent's connexion with the Times
to continue for another day.

" Permit me to thank you for the very courteous terms
in which you have expressed yourself in both your letters.
" I have the honour to be. Sir, your obedient servant,
" THE EDITOR OF THE TIMES."

" Mr. O'Connell feels gratified by the letter which the
editor of the Times has favoured him with. He cheer-
fully and thankfully embraces the offer kindly made to
him respecting Mr. E. Nugent, and will, he hopes satis-
factorily to the editor of the Times, comply with the con-
dition on which Mr. E. Nugent is to remain on the esta-
blishment.
" 4, Parliament-street, June 22."
On the same night Mr. O'Connell did make, ac-
cording to his promise, the following ample expla-
nation:—

" Mr. O'Connell wished to be heard respecting a breach
of the privilege of the House, and be should say but very
few words. What he wished to refer to was the breach
of privilege be had complained of with respect to the
Times newspaper, in which matter had been attributed to
him which he had not spoken. Upon that occasion the
Speaker had seemed to intimate, that if the rnisrepre-
sentation had been intentionally committed, the House was
entitled to proceed. Bowing to the Speaker's judgment,
he (Mr. O'Connell) had inquired into the subject, and
had ascertained, beyond any doubt, that the management
of that paper was not at all to blame. He had also seen
the reporter, who had satisfactorily explained to him that
there was no intentional misrepresentation in the case,
either with respect to himself or any other Honourable
Member; and when he considered that, from the incon-
veniences with which reporters had to contend in the
gallery it must often happen that speakers were only par-
tially heard, and also that one reports ;frequently followed
another in the middle of a speech, he could easily see how
misrepresentation might occur without any intention of
attributing to the Hon. Member sentiments which he
did not express. He would say no more upon the sub-
ject, except to repeat his conviction that no blame what-
ever could attach to the conductors of the paper, and that
the reporter was equally free from the reproach of inten-
tional misrepresentation in the case alluded to."—Parlia-
mentary report of June 22, 1832. 1
Now, could it be supposed that Mr. O'Connell
would afterwards refer to this very case as one of
wilful misrepresentation and " deliberate falsehood,"
nay, that he would on such grounds at a public ta-
vern include a whole body of men in the charge of
" deliberate falsehood ?" In what state are the
accused placed ? Having been previously described
as incompetent, and now, as liars, they, in the agony
of resentment, abstain from reporting the speeches
of a Member who has pronounced them to be inca-
pable, from ignorance and dishonesty, of reporting
correctly : and they commit the further offence of
stating in a letter the motive of their conduct. Un-
der these circumstances, may we not, on their be-
half, appeal to the House of Commons, as a body of
gentlemen, and to the Speaker, as the first gentle-
man in it, whether this proceeding on their part de-
serves any severe visitation, and that on the motion
and pressing instance of their unjust accuser ?
We confidently trust that the House will rather
sympathize with this natural ebullition of the
wounded feelings of men of education and
honour, and decline to interpose its power
when invoked by one who, instead of offering
amends, demands the punishment of those whom
he has cruelly assailed. There is one other consi-
deration connected with this matter which must not
be concealed, and which, if not kept carefully in
view, will inevitably lead to the most prejudicial
results, both as regards Parliament and as regards
the public ; it is this :—that part of the Press of
this country which consists of the reporters, was at
one time filled by persons of lamentable ignorance
and incompetence, and of characters very far from
respectable. They were for the most part those
low Irish, who may yet live in the recollection of
some Hon. Members, and of whom it has been
said, not with more smartness than truth, that they
came to England to be porters or re-porters, as luck
might have it. It is no longer worth while ,

for this class now to emigrate. With great
pains, at no small expense, and with no less ad-
vantage to Parliament than to the country, this old
leaven was rooted out, and sufficient inducements
were offered to literary men and to students-at-law,
in their progress to the bar, to persuade them
to embark in this pursuit. Very many gentle-
men now at the English bar, and at the bar of Ire-
land, are indebted to this means of acquiring an
easy independence by honourable exertion till better
prospects opened to them in the profession for
which they were intended, but in most cases those
prospects never could have been realized had it not
been for the certain, and not remarkably small, in-
come they derived from reporting. It may be suf-
ficient to state, that six Members of the House of
Commons have been reporters; and to mention the
names only of those, the brightness of whose career
cannot be dimmed by an allusion to its unsunned
outset, we may add that the present Solicitor-
General, Mr. Sergeant Spankie, Str J. Mackintosh,
and the late Master Stephen, were all reporters.
Hence the high character, the unsullied integrity,
and the talent, and extensive information of the
great body of the existing reporters; but these qua-
lities must be lost, the old system must be resorted
to, and this portion of the press will again become
as low in character, as contemptible in efficiency,
and as mean in acquirements, if it should be de-
cided that none shall be employed in it but
men who will not only submit to be called
liars with impunity, but who must expect punish-
ment if they resent an indignity which by common
consent is admitted to be the last which one
man can put upon another. We refer, in conclu-
sion, to two letters, one written by Mr. Woods,
whose name appears first of the signatures to the
statement published in Friday's journal, the other
by Mr. E. Nugent, whose character has been so
unmercifully assailed, and who has a right to be
heard in self-defence. We entreat that every
Member of the House of Commons who intends
to sit as judge in this case will carefully peruse
these letters, and we would especially recommend
to Mr. O'Connell the perusal of Mr. Nugent's.
We think its tone of thinking and feeling must
make the learned person deeply ashamed of having
injured such a man, For ourselves, we have felt
it to be an act of duty to defend a body of men
who, from their industry, their talents, their in-
tegrity, have the strongest claims on our respect
and support.—Times.

It is supposed the Lords will make fight to-day
and will not give up their clause. If the amend-
ment means anything, it is intended to convey to
the country that in a sinecure parish a church and
glebe-house shall be built for the purposes of pro-
selytism, or to induce a Protestant population to
settle there ; if, on the contrary, the amendment
means nothing more than is conveyed in the words
of the clause, it is only a gratuitous insult on the
House of Commons, the country, and the Govern-
ment : in either case it is a proceeding that the
House of Commons will not sanction, and the public
and Ireland in particular, will then have to thank
the Archbishop (whom the Ministerial papers com-
pliment by the term " simple-minded") for the
consequences that must ensue from the rejec•
tion of the Church Reform Bill. In common
sense, to any reasonable man who looks fairly at
the clause as it was sent up from the House of
Commons, it will appear that the intention was
to suspend these sinecure parishes while they con-
tinued under such circumstances as are there de-
scribed, and the word "suspended" implies, that if
an alteration should take place in the situation of
any such parish, and that there should arise a Pro-
testant population, then are the means provided for
restoring the parish so suspended. If this was not
clear, it would have been easy for the Archbishop to
have proposed such an amendment as would have
clearly explained to the people of Ireland that it
was intended to relieve them from the abuse of
tolerating these sinecure parishes, against which
every man of common sense has raised his voice;
but at the same time to mark to them that a case
might occur in which it would be fair to call on
the commissioners who suspended the sinecure
to restore that which from altered circumstances
had become fairly entitled to the • revenues,
or some part of them, that had previously
been withdrawn. This, however, would net
have answered the purpose; it would neither
have marked the power of the majority nor their
hostility to the intention of this Bill. The result of
all this must be that collision which the Tories have
professed so much to fear—either the clause will
remain in the Bill as amended, in which:case it will
clearly be reported by the House of Commons, or
the Bill will altogether be thrown out by the Lords,
in which case it would appear almost impossible,
after all that has occurred, that the House of Com-
mons should not express an opinion as to the neces-
sity of creating Peers,and thus restoring some chance
to the people of measures being adopted which they
have a right to expect to arise out of the Re-
form Bill, notwithstanding the declaration of the
Duke of Wellington that all such measures were
equally mischievous. One thing at least is clear,
that Lord Althorp should not bring forward any
proposition for an advance to the clergy of Ireland
in lieu of tithes till this Church question is com-
pletely settled. It can only be looked at as part of
a measure, and those who were most anxious for its
adoption, with a view of preventing the effusion of
blood, and the vexatious mode in which those ar-
rears of tithe Nere to be effected, pledged them-
selves to support the new arrangement only in the
belief that the moderate measure of reform in the
Church of Ireland proposed by Ministers, would
receive the sanction of the House of Lords. If,
then, the Bill is rejected either openly or by the in-
sidious mode adopted by the Bishops, the responsi-
bility of all the difficulties that may arise out of the
rejection must rest with them. It is probable some
question will be put to Lord Althorp in the House
of Commons on this subject.—Times.

Scarcely a day passes which is not fruitful of spe-
culation, in one form or another, as to the probable
and early retirement, as it is called, of the present
Administration. Its adherents, however, are perpe-
tually asserting, as though it were a matter admit-
ting of no question, that another Ministry could not
be formed without extreme difficulty, or that, being
formed, its existence must prove of short duration.
It would really appear, if we are to receive the dog-
mas of some of our contemporaries as authorities,
that the people of England are, notwithstanding their
repeated disappointments, so thoroughly devoted to
the present Administration, and so fondly attached
to Whig principles and to Whig promises, though
they have so frequently been taught by bitter ex-
perience the instability of the one and the worthless-
ness of the other, that they actually would hesitate,
if they did not positively refuse, to accept of any
advantages that might result from any improvements
that should be effected by a Tory Government.
Are the people of England then such idiots as these
Whig Journalists would have us believe, or rather are
they riot now, as they ever have been, capable of dis-
tinguishing between the hollowness of mere pretenders
and the sincerity of real friends; between the
worthlessness of theories, which have invariably
deceived and disappointed them, and the value of
principles which have lived through successive ages,
the glory of the British monarchy, the basis of
constitutional liberty, of religious excellence, and
of moral character? The British:nation can appre-
ciate the honesty and zeal of men who have ever
exemplified and upheld those principles, and who
still boldly maintain them against the unremitting
assaults of revolutionary fanatics. It is not so en-
grossed in prejudice, so blindly and thoughtlessly
attached to one patticular system (if indeed the
present Government have any system), as to be
unwilling, after having experienced its weakness
and insufficiency, to exchange it for another and a
better. We are fully satisfied, whatever the Mi-
nisterial oracles may assert to the contrary, that the
retirement of the present Administration would at
this moment diffuse throughout the country a feel-
ing of entire and unmingled satisfaction. But per-
haps the term " retirement" ought not to be adopted