The Sun.
London, England, 1835-11-12 00:00:00

ttAnu+

LONDON.
THURSDAY EVENING, NOVEMBER 12, 1535.

Our readers will find in another part of The Sun,
Mr. O'CONNELL'S reply to Mr. RApirAEL's . late
charges against him respecting pecuniary matters con-
nected with the Carlow election. We need not say
that this reply is in every respect triumphant. Indeed
it leaves Mr. Ex-Sheriff without a leg to stand on.
It may be remembered that this gentleman observed in
one of his letters, " that I should not do O'CONNELL
an injustice, it is fair that I should state that the second
sum of 1,0001. has been accounted for, by his paying in
cash 350/. to Mr. BAKER towards the law charges,
after repeated applications made for the balance, by
giving him a Bill for it at a long date, drawn by Mr.
O'CONNELL himself on the self-same brewers as the
8001. before alluded to was drawn for." Mr. RAPHAEL
seems here to pique himself, like a tailor, on having
played the part of a most exemplary dun ; but
it will be shown by the following passage from
• DANIEL'S reply, that there was not the slightest
occasion for such snip-like nervousness, the whole
statement being directly contrary to fact. " Per-
• • haps," says Mr. O'CONNELL, " there never were so
many falsehoods stuffed into so small a space. It is
false that the second 1,000/. was accounted for in the
way stated. Paying in cash 3501. to Mr. BAKER
towards law charges ?' Mr. BAKER never made to
me any such application--no person even applied to
me, or had any occasion to apply to me, for any ba-

lance. By giving him a bill at a long date, drawn

by Mr. O'CONNELI. himself, on the self-same brewers.'
717.711 j never gave Mr. BAKER a bill for any sum upon any
J i as:p brewer or brewers, or any bill at any date. ' As the
1)57:800/. before alluded to was drawn upon.' Neither the
brio.?oo/., or any part of it, was paid to any person by a bill
drawn on any brewer or brewers. I never in my
life drew a bill on any brewer." After this direct,
straight-forward contradiction of Mr, R A PHAEL'S hea-

viest charge, what will that gentleman say for him-
self
? Possibly lie may urge that his statement is quite
as much entitled to credit as Mr. O'CONNELL'S
denial. Granted ; but the latter gentleman has at least
this advantage over the former, insomuch as his contra-
diction is fully corroborated by Mr. VIGORS—as ho-
nourable a man as ever breathed. " The whole of
the slim" observes Mr. VIGORS in his letter to
O'CoNNELL, " handed to you by Mr. RAPHAEL, to
cover the expenses of the contest 'in which he was
returned for this county, was transmitted by you to
the county through me, to the uttermost fraction. I
would add that in all the transactions between Mr.
RAPHAEL and this county, in which you acted as the
mutual friend of both parties, and to all of which I
believe I was privy, your conduct was the most liberal,
upright, and honourable.7 We here take leave of the
subject, simply observing, that Mr. Ex-Sheriff, by
his preposterous charges against O'CoNNELL, and
still more by his mode of bringing them forward,
which he was only enabled to do by the publication
of letters evidently meant to be confidential, has
placed himself in a position at once ridiculous and
I humiliating.

We congratulate Lord SEGRAVE on the recovery
of his good sense and liberality, and hope he will never
again permit his wits to go a wool-gathering. It may
be remembered that he expressed himself last Session,
in his place in Parliament, in such equivocal terms as
naturally led to the belief that he was about to abandon
Ministers, and throw himself into the arms of the
Tory party ; but he has now undeceived us ; for at
the.dinner given on Tuesday last to Lord JOHN Rus-
SELL at Clifton, he observed, " it had been con-
tended that Members of the House of Lords had no
right to account either for their votes, or the motives
which influenced them. He disagreed with that doc-
trine altogether. He held it to be a glaring absurdity
to suppose that the House of Lords could assume an
irresponsibility whioh was not claimed by the first
estate in the realm. He was, for his own part, always
glad to meet the great body of the people; and though
he did not derive his legislative power from them, yet,
be considered it as a sacred deposit to be used for their
benefit entirely. He had never differed in principle
from any measure brought forward by Lord GREY'S or
Lord MELBOURNE'S Administrations. He trusted the
House of Lords would, ere long, conform to the spirit
' of the times, and advocate measures of Reform, instead
of thinking it inseparable from hereditary dignity that
that they should also support hereditary and ac-
knowledged abuses." These are sound, healthy,
sentiments, and.such as become a British Peer to utter,
and a British audience to listen to. Would we could
say as much for the substance of Mr. MOORE'S speech
at the dinner in question ; but a regard for truth com-
pels us, however reluctantly, to state that it is not
altogether such as we were prepared to expect from
him. What, for instance, is to be said for a declaration
like this ?—" With all his love of freedom, he could
make allowances for -those who viewed its progress
with alarm and' distrust." Why so, Tom ? What is
there in the " progress" of liberty to inspire any ra-
tional being with apprehension ? Surely you, at least,
are not alarmed—you, who have ipeen chaunting Io
Paeans in its praise for the beist part of half a century !
We must confess we cannot understand this squeam-
ishness. It looks exceedingly like cant, and comes
with peculiar infelicity from a poet, who flew into such
a prodigious passion a few years since, because the
Italian Whigs refused to shake off the chains of the
Austrian Tories, So long as the " Irish Melodies "
continue on sale, Mr. MORE will do well to
abstain from insinuating his apprehensions of the
progress of freedom. Again, why does he say,
" there is a tone abroad which is not founded
in truth or candour ? In many points the
rebel broke out •in him, and he also rebelled
against that tone." This is all very childish—very
unfounded—for how can that public " tone" be a bad
one which welcomed the announcement of Mr.
MoortE's pension with a burst of 'acclamation ?
pass over his lavish praises of " the greater number"
of the nobility—by which of course,. he implies the
Tories, who constitute the majority—and come to the
only paesage in his speech which deserves praise. "If
the machinery of popular Representation should be
discovered to be clogged in its working by, an irre-
sponsible_ body, a question Would then arise as to
whether there was any thing so sacred about the insti-
tution of the House of Lords, as to entitle it to inter-
fere with, and injure the present prosperity and future
prospects of fe.e country." This is all very well so far
as it goes ; but unfortunately it is immediately after-
wards qualified, and even stultified, by Mr. MOORE'S
declaration that he can discover " no vice inherent in
the Constitution ;" and that consequently, the irre-
sponsible privileges of the Upper House, with its
vote by proxy, and its spiritual Peers sitting there in
political capacity, are all, as Philosopher SQUARE
would say, in strict accordance with the " fitness of
things."

Our readers will find in another column, a letter
from Mr. lIA.YwooD, which throws additional light
on the proceedings of the Orange Societies, and the
views-of their directors. We say nothing of that part
of the letter which relates to the substitution of the
Grand Master for the heir presumptive to the Throne.
We have no doubt the partizans of the great patron
and pillar of Protestantism ( I !) will, with their
usual contempt of truth, deny it point blank, and say,
as they said. before, that it is a fabrication of Mr.
HAYwoop's. We shall therefore, for the present,
pass it over without remark, and request the pub-
lic to mark the tendency of Orange principles to
promote loyalty—that virtue, of which Tories of all
colours arrogate to themselves the exclusive posses-
sion. It appears that the health of the SOVEREIGN,
which had been a standing toast in the Orange Lodges
up to 1832, was then dispensed with, and has never
been given since (at least in a certain district), until
Mr. HA Ywoop gave it on Saturday last. Mr. HAY-
wood asserts that the toast was proscribed by Col.
FAIRMAN'S directions, and that he is ready to con-
front the Colonel, and to prove his assertion by com-
petent witnesses—a challenge which we think must he
accepted. But whether the order came from the D. G.
S. or not, the fact that the KING'S health was discon-
tinued as a toast by the Orange Lodges speaks for
itself ; and will, we are sure, speak home to the hearts
of Englishmen.

Letters and Papers from Madrid to the 3d inst.
have been received. The Gazette of the Ist contains
a Royal Decree, vindicating the memory of the brave
but unfortunate RIEGo. Of this Decree, so impor-
tant at the present moment, we subjoin a copy :
_

" If on all occasions it is grateful to my heart to dry the
tears of the subjects of my beloved daughter, it is much more
so when to this duty of humanity is united the sacred obliga-
tion of repairing past errors. General Don Rafael del Riego,
who was condemned to an ignominious death by virtue of a
Decree issued subsequent to the act of which he was accused,
and for having given a vote as a Deputy of the nation, in which
capacity he was inviolable, according to the laws then in force,
and to the public rights of every Representative Government,
was one of those victims who, in moments of political crisis,
fanaticism strikes with the sword of justice. At a period
when those who, by their votes, manifested their approbation
of the same proposition as was supported by General Riego,
are filling distinguished posts, either in Parliamentary As.
semblics or in the Councils of my august daughter, it
must not be permitted that the memory of that General
should continue to be sullied by the stigma of crime,
or that his orphan family should be plunged in misfortune.
In these days of peace and reconciliation between the defen-
ders of the legitimate Throne and of Liberty, all bitter re-