The Sun.
London, England, 1834-04-28 00:00:00

SPIRIT OP THE PUBLIC JOURNALS.

Mr. O'Connell having gone into certain financial
and commercial details, the purpose of which was
to prove the prosperity of Ireland from 1782 to the
period of the Union, Mr. Spring Rice produced a
variety of tables and other official or authentic docu-
ments by which the allegations of the repealer were,
as our readers know, pretty completely overturned ;
and as Mr. O'Connell had rested that branch of
his case, viz., the comparative state of the country
under the two systems, on the above species of
evidence exclusively, the subalterns of the pasty,
one would suppose, might have been intent to
leave it so this, however, would not suit the
tactics of the hon. gentlemen ; Mr. Fergus O'Con-
nor (the best of the batch, it is said), upraiding
Ministers with having opposed Mr. O'Connelfs mo-
tion by " cold-blooded arithmetical calculations,"
that is to say, with having refuted falsehoods by
facts, while Mr. Ruthven complained of the more
general views and more animated language of Mr.
E. Tennant and others, as being no better than
" rhapsodical oratory and rhapsodical rhymes."
In short, it is an extreme hardship that any
sort of answer should be given to the effusions
of the learned Agitator, or that he should
not have everything his own way here as he
would have in a Dublin House of -Commons. There
is not a more barefaced trick on record than that
which has been constantly played by the Agitator
and his minions, in assuming that whatever policy
tends to frustrate his own schemes must be a crime
against the whole people of Ireland. The greatest
Blessing to that poor deluded people would be con-
ferred by him who could convince them that they
have no interest in the promotion of repeal, or in
the continuance of agitation, but a deep one in
uhatever would put an end to both ; and that the
'cruel series of disturbances to which the country
las so long been exposed have been inflicted on it
for the sake of one man's selfishness, to the grievous
detriment of every other class in the community,
but above all others, of that class whose subsistence
depends on the wages of daily labour, and therefore
ion that security for life and capital, without which
it is impossible that a regular demand for the poor
man's labour in any department of productive or
tranquil industry should exist. What monstrous
impudence is the complaint against absentees,
brought by him whose eager demoralization of the
Irish poor has driven, or is hourly banishing, every
man of moveable property, of civilized habits,
and peaceful character from a region which
none but murderers and outlaws can henceforth in-
habit with impunity ! But, turnir, to the question
of separate and independent legislatures nominally
under the same Sovereign, a word or two must be
said upon that political chimera. So long as the
old Orange jobbers—the Beresfords and two or
three other families—were able to rule Ireland
under the protection of the British Government,
and with a steady reference to its general policy,
they of course were adverse to a union, which
would merge them and their connexions in a united
Parliament, and would break up their monopoly of
Irish power and plunder. So long, again, as it
appeared to the British Government at once
profitable and feasible to carry on the affairs of
Ireland through such an instrument, no imme-
diate motive existed to the realization of an
incorporating union. But after the Orange oli-
garchy had, through the growth of Catholic num-
bers, property, intelligence, and ambition, as well
as at one period by the spread of the democratic
spirit, become too feeble to domineer over the na-
tion, and to afford to the imperial government a full
value, as formerly, for the amount of revenue laid
out in bribes to its adherents, by insuring the sub-
mission of the whole of Ireland to its will,—when,
in fact, the rebellion of 1798, and the imminent risk
to which British connexion and the crown of Ire-
land had been exposed by the unfitness of the sepa-
rate government for a longer exercise of its func-
tions, the union became the only rational mode of
averting the fatal evil of an absolute separation of
the islands, and was acquiesced in by a large por-
tion of the Protestant interest, as its only protection
against a transfer of the predominant power to an
Irish faction equally hostile to itself, and liable to
foreign influence. So long, once more, as there did
exist a legislative authority in Ireland, which might,
by perverse and sinister measures, embarrass the
policy of the King's British ministers at home and
abroad, and embroil the two independent parliaments
to a practical, if not a formal, dissolution of the state
itself, there were but two methods of insuring har-
mony between such imperfectly connected bodies, or,
in other words, keeping Ireland in a steady adherence
to the march of British policy—viz., intimidation and
corruption. One of these was necessary, but the
latter was the least revolting : the former would
have been a continual state of preparatory war.
That the empire, therefore, should be kept together,
it was unavoidable for the Irish parliament to be
either a wiser, more virtuous, and patriotic as-
semblage of individuals than had ever been found
upon earth, or a body self-hired by the wages of
subserviency to perform indispensable duties. Such
was the condition of Ireland in her separate state—
an unavoidable necessity for English government by
the sword, or for English government maintained by
corruption, or for a dissolution of the British em-
pire ; and on the memorable occasion of the regency,
1789, when the power of corruption was likely to
change hands, and the ministers of the Regent to
supersede those of George 111., the separation ofthe crowns was in effect producd by the vote of the
Irish parliament, for vesting in the Irish executive
government a prerogative by far more extensive
than that with which the government of Eng-
land was intrusted. Upon this the most important
division of the whole subject, the arguments of Sir
R. Peel are irresistible. The idea of separate Par-
liaments for Great Britain and Ireland, independent
of each other, and equal in their respective autho-
rities, is a fraud upon the common sense of man-
kind. It is a device for making the unity of the
empire dependent on the mere will of Mr. Daniel
O'Connell—a power more enormous than ever was
lodged in the hands of any subject of any country
under Heaven,—a power which no limited monarch
was ever permitted to exercise,—a power which, in
dishonest hands (and we need say nothing of the
hands into which it must fall), could amount to no-
thing less than utter, entire, irredeemable destruc-
tion of all that among the institutions of a free
country was worth preserving, of all that in the
social condition of man was worth enjoying—of
civil and religious liberty, of personal free agency,
of property, law, manners, morals, confidence, repose,
andhappiness—whatever is comprehended under the
one term " civilization." O'Connell, in the words of
an observant friend of ours, " O'Connell has ruffi-
anized and blackguardized Ireland." He must be
put down, or he will put down the state. It is
barely enough that this almost insurrectionary
attempt to break up the elements of the British
monarchy should be met by a strong resolution
declaratory of the mind of King, Lords, and Com-
mons. The attempt in any form to dissolve the
union, and the empire with it, is of an order of
guilt so high and faithful, and aims at consequences
so calamitous and fatal, that it is for parliament to
consider whether some provision of a penal nature,
similar to that which has been affixed to any en-
deavour at overturning the act of settlement, might
not be most beneficially enacted against overt
attempts to undermine and subvert the union be-
tween the several parts of the United Kingdom.
For what is the act of settlement but a means to an
end, the end being the avoidance of a disputed suc-
cession ; while the act of union is still, if possible,
more precious to the people of both countries than
any thing which affects the person of the Monarch.
It involves the existence of the monarchy itself.—
Times.

Political writers of late have generally expressed
themselves doubtful as to the soundness of the
theory formerly assumed to be that of the constitu-
tion of this country. It has been said, that we
never have had a House of Peers and a House of
Commons independent of each other. The problem
remains to be solved—and may be salved during

sive.

the gession—how far and how long a temsentative
and an hereditary legislative body can " work toge-
ther." Rumours have been rife during the last few
days that the Tory Peers have resolved to crush
all the pendinc, liberal measures of legislation, and
to make " a dead 'set" at the Administration. No
one doubts that the Conservative Lords have the
power and the will, if they have the temerity--and
can " screw their courage to the sticking place"—
to accomplish this r.=.ported design ; and few can
doubt, except their lordships, of its ultimate and
siFral failure. The blind aristocracy of Europe
will never see their real interest till the hour of dis-
solution. They think that they can arrest the wheels
of time—that with the
,bla 'Weapons_ of ignorance
they can defeat the groArifig power of knowledge—
that they can not only prevent the progress of
liberal opinions, but also root up the trees of liberty
planted throughout Europe. The legitimate
Monarchs of Europe have their active partisan's, in
England, and the formation of a Tory cabinet in
this country is the great present design of that
asylum for the blind—the Holy Alliance. The
commencement of this new crusade of the Tory
peers, it is said, will be their fatal opposition to the
" Election Purification Bills." If the Conservatives
cannot " un-reform" the House of Commons they
will, at least, endeavour to prevent its further re-
formation. Thus the bills for the real enfranchise-
ment of Warwick, Liverpool, and Hertford, are the
particular objects of demolition in the House of
Lords. Whether the victims are to be indulged
with the comparative blessings of an instant death,
or to be condemned to a lingering torture and the
rack of mock inquiry, appears doubtful ; but that
the bills are condemned, at least by the fulminations
of the Tory peers and Conservative clubs, is notori-
ous. Although we doubt not the ardent hopes and
desires of the enemies of reform, we cannot believe
that the more moderate and sensible Tory peers
will sanction such an insult to the Reformed
House of Commons, or such an outrage on public
opinion. Lord Harrowby and Lord Wharncliffe
have but recently affected to entertain moderate
opinions, and to be eminently desirous of prevent-
ing the disunion and collision of the two branches
of the legislature. Are they about to repeat the
singular tactics they displayed during the critical
discussion of the Reform Bills? And are these
two wavering peers to be again the fulcrum of the
most obnoxious conduct of the Tory lords ? If so,
these two bold and eminently moderate peers will
imitate the mediators in an Irish row, whose well
known province it is to inflame the hostile clans,
hat by an increased activity of strife the termina-
tion of the contest may be more speedy and deci-
And what are the measures which the Con-
servative peers are thus suspected of intending to
" cast out ?" The bill " for preventing bribery and
corruption and illegal practices in. the election of
members to serve in Parliament for the borough
of Warwick," is founded on the most indisputable
evidence of the basest and most varied election
infamies on the records of Parliament. The ac-
cused and convicted parties offered no de-
fence. Two grave and long protracted in-
quiries of Commons' committees have justified a
bill for annexing the town of Leamington to the
borough of Warwick, thus giving to the oppressed
and demoralised electors of the latter place the
means of an independent and honest exercise of their
elective franchise. The bill passed the House of
Commons in all its stages without a division. Is
this a measure which the lords will this day be bold
and insane enough to reject, not only in defiance of
the House of Commons, but without even the de-
cent forms of preliminary inquiry ? And if they
pause before they thus expose themselves to the
country, will they execute their rumoured intention
of " voting out" on the second reading of the bill " to
exclude the freemen of Liverpool from voting at the
election of members of parliament for that borough?"
If they object to pass the Warwick Bill without
evidence before their own tribunal, as they have
already announced, will they really cast out
the Liverpool Bill without any investigation of
its merits ? The extraordinary doctrine of the
Tory peers is, that in their judicial capacity
they must inquire for themselves ; and that the ju-
dicial inquiries of the Commons ought to have no
weight or influence with their Lordships. Will they
nevertheless assume that the Commons' evidence
in the case of Warwick does necessitate an inquiry
at the bar of the Upper House, and in the same
breath, the same evening, contend that the Com-
mons' evidence does not justify the Liverpool Bill ;
that is to say, in the one case adopt the evidence be-
fore the Commons, and in the other case repudiate
its application? If the Peers thus portray them-
selves to the country, they will have no justification
—not even the shadow of an apology. The Elec-
tion Purification Bills are not Cabinet measures.
No party manoeuvre to outvote Ministers can exte-
nuate or explain such an outrageous and disgraceful
course of legislative procedure. It will be a cold
and malignant act of hostility to all reform. A col-
lision between the two Houses of Lords and Com-
mons will be inevitable, and immediately consequen-
tial on their Lordships' suicidal vote. A Re-
formed House of Commons could never brook
such an insult to its character and natural right to
deal with the representation of the people. The
suspended writs would of course be continued in
their present abeyance ; and the House of Com-
mons would immediately come to some signal vote
of recorded opinion on the hostile and unconstitu-
tional acts of the peers. Will the Lords invite
such a conflict ? Have they ever at any period of
British History gained by such a collision ? And
in such times and on such an occasion are they
more likely to reap any benefit from such a critical
and senseless opposition to the representative power
of the nation ? When the time shall arrive that
the elective and hereditary branches of the legisla-
ture cannot act together, which of them will even-
tually give place to the other ? The country will
look to the result of the debate in the Lords this
evening with intense interest as the opening of their
Lordships' campaign and the demonstration of their
Sessional tactics.—Morning Chronicle.

DEATH OF MR. STOTHARD.—Died yes-
terday, at one o'clock, p.m., at his house, in New..
man-street, Oxford-street, Thomas Stothard, Esq.,
R. A. Mr. Stothard was born in Long-acre in August,
1755, consequently was in his 79th year. He was a
self-taught genius in the true sense of the word. He
was nursed at Dulwich, where he passed several years
of his infancy ; he was then removed to Yorkshire.
His great delight, even in his boyhood, was to pass
hours in looking at an old picture in a store-room of
the house in which he lived. At the age of fourteen
he removed to Spitalfields, London, where he was
bound an apprentice to a calico-printer. During his
apprenticeship his master died, and being a favourite
with his widow, he used to employ his spare hours in
making drawings for her, some of which were arranged
along the chimney-piece. It chanced that, in the
course of business, a gentleman who saw these draw-
ings was struck with them, and putting some ques-
tions to the widow as to the artist, he was told they
were by one of her apprentices, who had made a great
number. He took some of the drawings with him, and
having shown them to a publisher of that day with
whom he was intimate, this led to the' employment of
the young artist in making drawings for the booaseller.F.
Mr. Stothard has made more drawings than any man
who ever lived—Chedowiecki, perhaps, excepted.
His invention was only equalled by his taste and deli-
cacy. On every subject he was completely at home.
No person could be a moderate admirer of Stothard.
His admirers were enthusiastically so. The collec-
tors of his drawings and engravings are numerous.
Many of our most distinguished engravers have ob-
tained their chief reputation by engraving after
Stothard, and we may instance the late James Heath.
As a man, Stothard could have no enemy. His cha-
racter was simplicity itself. He has left behind him
three sons—Alfred, who has gained much reputation
for his masterly medallions ; Henry, and Robert (an
artist), and one daughter, who has watched assiduously
over the artist during his declining years, arid who ought
not to be left destitute. Mr. Stothard was only con-
fined to his room about a week. We believe till
within these 2 years he was employed as an artist. He
was about the middle size, of a compact make, ex-.
ceedingly active, and enjoyed almost uninterrupted
health. When about sixty years of age he has walked
fifty miles in a day.