The Sun.
London, England, 1859-12-23 00:00:00

IRELAND.

DUBLIN, THURSDAY MORNING.
IRISH LOYALTY.
The statement that her Majesty's name was hissed
at the recent sympathy meeting held in Cork is
prompting discussion. Mr. Maguire, M.P., has
already asserted the contrary in his journal, and
now he again comes before the public in connection
with the following protest :
71:Ire the undersigned Roman Catholic magistrates of
Cork, have seen with equal astonishment and regret a state-
ment in the Times that at the public meeting held in Cork
on Monday, the sth of December, to express sympathy for
the Pope, the name of the Queen was received with a burst
of disapprobation which rendered the speaking inaudible.
We are also pained to find that the said statement has been
copied into some of the continental journals. We, having
been present at the meeting in question, deem it our duty
to give that statement the most emphatic and unqualified
contradiction. We heard no expressions of disloyalty. On
the contrary, the meeting was characterised by a spirit of
loyalty', which found expression in cordial applause when-
ever the name of our most gracious Sovereign was mentioned
by the several speakers. We deem it rigt to hand this
counter-statement to the most rev. chairman who presided
at the meeting, reßuesting he will give it publicity.
• " JOHN FRANCIS MAGUIRE, M.P., J.P.
" WILLIAM J. SHEEHY, J.P., county Cork.
" JAMES MURRAY, J.P., co. Cork, 2d Chairman.
" JOHN NICHOLAS MURPHY, J.P. D.L.
" TIMOTHY MURPHY, J.P., Secretary to Meeting.
" MICH. CIGNEY, J.P.
4' DR. LEAHY ARTHUR, J.P., county of Cork.
" JOHN WALSH CLERY, J.P.
" Cork, Dec. 17."
Every intelligent person will rejoice that Mr.
Maguire and his friends are able to publish the
foregoing with a clear conscience ; and it new rests
with the local journal which stated that the Queen's
name was hissed to acknowledge itself in error, or
to prove this deolaration incorrect. That her Ma-
jesty's name was the signal for disloyal outburst,
when it was mentioned at the Kingstown sympathy
meeting, remains as yet uncontradicted.
VOLUNTEERING IN IRELAND.
A portion of the Irish press continues to call out
for the extension of the volunteer movement to Ire-
land, and in discussing the subject the Belfast Mer-
cury makes the following sensible remarks :
" We cannot deny the fact that the loyal inhabi-
tants of Ireland consider it a slur upon their loyalty
in not being enabled to chime in with the English
mania and establish rifle corps. At present, as we
already explained, the law does not authorise, but
prohibits, the voluntary association of armed men,
even for loyal purposes. We consider the law a
good one, in the present condition of the country.
Take Belfast for example—we are now compara-
tively quiet because we are a proclaimed district,
but allow a general arming for volunteer purposes,
and would you not practically arm two hostile forces,
one against the other. No doubt about it. You
would have the Sandy-row Williamites against the
Pound-street Greens, and the arms you would put
into their hands would be only potent in a warfare
of contending factions. Even supposing an enemy
landed at Carrickfergus, who among us would place
confidence in such defenders ? It is not unlikely,
however, that a movement will be made next session
to repeal or modify the law as regards voluntary
arming in Ireland. We admit that many good and
loyal men feel the exceptional legislation under which
we live as a degradation. It is galling to them that
they cannot associate together for purposes of na-
tional defence, as Englishmen are doing. They feel
this an impeachment on their loyalty, and
desire to have the legal impediment removed.
Now, in considering the question calmly, it must
be admitted that there is a vast difference between
England and Ireland. In England we have no
Arms Act—no proclaimed districts. The people
are loyal to the back bone—submissive to the law,
and would rally as one man to uphold the throne
and defend the constitution. In Ireland we have
a different state of affairs entirely. We have in-
cendiaries, whose chief delight appears to be to
harbour dreams of a French invasion—miscreants
who hate the British constitution and the un-
bounded liberty it affords—a liberty they only use
for evil purposes. We have also intense sectarian
strife—old and justifiable party notions, which are
hereditary heir-looms, and glorious ones too—we
have the animosities of faction among us, and now,
since Rome has assumed the offensive, we have the
religious element becoming every day more de-
veloped, and separating the country into two hos-
tile camps, above which the rival flags wave—
loyalty and disloyalty. There is no mistake
about this. Every man of intelligence knows
that we are only stating the simple truth.
We say, therefore, that it would be utterly
destructive of the peace of Ireland to repeal
the existing law, and allow us to arm as we please,
as members of rifle corps. Deprecating with all
sincerity such a repeal of the law, we do not say
that a modification might not be made, if you pro-
vided a high test. In discussing the question the
other day, the cavalry test was proposed, and we
really think it an excellently good one. Any per-
son who can mount himself and appear on parade
as an independent man may fairly be taken as a
loyal subject. We would have no objection to see
such a cavalry corps established among us. If we
have a semi-military population among our young
bloods, or middle-aged bloods, by all means let
them indulge their fancy, but preserve us from a
general armament."

THE MITCHEL AMNESTY.

This "patriotic" individual has favoured the
public
.with another letter in explanation of his
views. In writing to the Waterford Citizen (a
journal recently established by one of the " heroes"
of 1848) Mr. Mitchel says :
" I have not scouted' the amnesty movement;
I will scout the amnesty, if granted. Indeed it was
and is my strong wish to see that movement prose-
cuted to an issue, in order to bring the system of
British jurisprudence and government in Ireland
more prominently before the world just at this
juncture ; and presuming that the Queen would
certainly be advised to refuse the application, I
greatly wish to see on what false pretence the
refusal would be based; for it is a rigid rule,
admitting of no exceptions, that an English Minis-
ter never assigns to any public act its true motive.
Further, the tone and spirit of the proceedings of
the friends of the amnesty, both in Cork and Water-
ford Corporations, were dignified and just, and
there was no fear that in the hands of such men
as Mr. Maguire and Mr. Biala the cause of the
exiles would suffer damage or derogation. In
short, I should have been silent, and looked on
with pleasure, if I had not observed that some
of the resolutions calling for an amnesty in
various towns were sustained by several speakers
on the express ground that the law had been
now sufficiently vindicated,' and even certain of
those resolutions themselves (at least in Dungar-
van) urge that 'the time is arrived' for an am-
nesty. This was too bad; and I thought no time
must be lost in showing that I, for one, had no
concern in such proceedings. The law was not
vindicated; the law was violated and trampled
under foot by those proceedings which were called
our trials.' They were not, I hope, Catholics who
said the law had been sufficiently vindicated by de-
liberately excluding all Catholics from the juries—
as being persons accustomed to perjury, perhaps;
at any rate, as being for some reason unfit to exer-
cise the common civic office of jurors in any case of
public importance. As for the time being come,'
th 3 time at which such an atrocity should have
been undone was the very moment after it was per-
petrated. Nevertheless, if there be Irishmen in
your part of the world who believe that by pack-
ing juries law is -vindicated, or that an unjust and
illegal judgment, having been carried out for twelve
years, the time is then come to annul it, no doubt
they have a right to their opinion. Moreover,
they have a right to lay their petitions at the foot
of the throne' upon those very grounds, and none
other; but I must be allowed to express my modest
sentiments thereupon. After all, the affair is yours,
not mine ; but I felt the more strongly called upon
to say what I thought of it, inasmuch as in the
month of October, 1853, I did, in an American
court of justice, according to the forms in that case
provided, abjure on oath all allegiance to all kings
and queens, and especially by name, to Queen Vic-
toria—an abjuration which cost me small effort—
aud I deem it no more than the respect due to my
Government that I should distinctly show I have
no participation in a petition for pardon to a
foreign Sovereign, lest any human being should
imagine I think of sinking down from the station
of an American citizen into that of an Irish subject
to an English queen."
After this, surely no one will be silly enough to
advocate the extension of the royal clemency to Mr.
Mitchel. The man is a contemptible fool, too weak
to do any serious mischief.