The Sun.
London, England, 1828-08-21 00:00:00

SPIRIT OP THR PUBLIC JOURNALS,

Lord Anglesey experiences a cordial reception
from all classes of the Irish, wherever he appears.
He mingles in a social and unaffected manner
with the gentlemen of the country—makes no
parade of his ephemeral grandeur—is not a Vice-
roy of glittering pretension in his politics, greedy
of men's tongues, but acquiring no affection, be-
cause he feels not any. Lord Anglesey is
treated by the gentlemen of Ireland like a mem-
ber of their own community. Individuals and
bodies of all colours, from the Catholic to the
Presbyterian, take pleasure in manifesting the
uey
means
eathroughns
confidence tvith which the frank and manly bear-
ing of the Lord Lieutenant has inspired them.
The peasants of Tipperary—the boldest and
most
hisla lawless 1
unguardede ss i the kingdom---unyokethe
w th the
braveorse s
from
their towns.--
There soldier
in
LordAn
loyalg el
reismp There must be every where a deep conviction
th
well
and honestly
towns.—
honestly to
Ireland, or the temper of the nation would show
itself under a far different aspect. In his Excel-
lency's answer to an address from the Synod of
Ulster, there occurs a passage not at all strained
or inappropriate, but which may serve as a fair
text by which to judge his general sentiments
on the subject of civil rights. In speaking of
the ample share of civil and religious liberty
enjoyed by the Presbyterian body in Ire-
land, the Lord Lieutenant describes that
liberty as the " fruit of wise and steady
perseverance in constitutional measures, for
the attainment of the legitimate object of
their wishes." It may then be not assumed
without some reason, that Lord Anglesey con-
siders civil and religious liberty as a legitimate
object of desire for those to whom it has been
denied, and perseverance in all lawful exertions
as the wise and just means of attaining it. The
Catholics, we apprehend, will not be slow in
pointing the application of such sentiments to
their own conduct and condition, or in deducing
ahe natural inference with respect to Lord
Angiesey's.views. Yet it is because of this
" COD stitUtlOnal perseverance" in importuning
the legislature cos their " civil liberties" with-
held, that the Catholics are now menaced with
a sanguinary assault from a preieuded army of
400,000 cut-throats, headed by an officer of
justice ! We say nothing more of the amount of'
force here appealed to, than that there are not,
in the whole of Ireland, ha/f400,000 Protes-
tants of all denominations able to carry arms,
and that of the actual number, there are at least
one-half, if not more, decided friends to emanci-
pation : but that we may pass by. The only
matter worth discussing is the principle—the
justice of putting down complaint by violence—
the policy of extinguishing those natural organs
through which the suffering of millions presents
itself to the notice of society. We have long
since affirmed that the priests of Ireland have no
power of resisting the people, but only of encourag-
ing and directing those popular impulses which
exist independent of the church ! The time was,
when the Irish priesthood had, as a corporation,
little cause of complaint against the Govern-
ment, when both were Roman Catholic—both
acknowledging the authority of the Pope. In
such cases it is the obvious interest, and recorded
tendency, of most Catholic establishments to at-
tach themselves to the Government, and to preach
subordination to the people. But did the church
of Ireland, before it was despoiled and annihi-
lated—did that church at any time succeed in
producing among the nation an affection for the
British rule, and a loyal disposition towards
England ? Never. The national sense of mis-
government, the inflictions of the foreign scourge,
were too strong for church influence, no matter
how directed ; and before the Reformation, when
religion in both countries was the same, as since
the Reformation, when it differed, no progress
was ever made by this kingdom in conciliating
the temper of the Irish race,—the wronged, the
insulted, the persecuted, and trampled nation.
If the priests of Ireland were to-morrow to
preach against the political emancipation of their
countrymen, every chapel in the island would
be burned to the earth. But if the priests are
nothing, so are the demagogues nothing. The
talisman there is in the speech, not in him who
speaks it. It is because he addresses his ha-
rangue to feelings of which lie himself partakes,
but which, if he partook them not, would ani-
mate the nation without him, and in spite of
him, that Shiel, or O'Connell, or O'Mahon,
possess any sway over his brethren. Yet,
we hear it said, " Crush the Association !"
and the frantic yell is echoed from an
hundred drunken throats. Crush what ? A
name ! for the Association is nothing more sub-
stantial. The Association is any number of
Catholics assembled for convenience in a given
chamber of Dublin. Expel them from that
chamber, will they meet in no other ?—will the
expulsion or momentary dispersion diminish the
amount of their wrongs, or blunt their sense of
them ? When the same Catholics meet in the
habitation of one of themselves, will they not
have one more grievance to
.exasperate them in
the very prohibition to meet publicly, on which
the Orange statesmen reckon as their master-
piece of wisdom ? No : if you would put
down the priests, emancipate the laity—if the
demagogues, leave them no topic on which to
declaim. If you would crush the Association,
crush the grievance out of which it grows. Do
not multiply such a hydra, by cutting off a single
head, or raise 2,000 vociferating monsters in as
many parishes throughout the island. The vice
inherent in our present factious constitution, is
that which creates whatever is vicious ill the
power of the Catholics, or dangerous in its pos-
sible application ; any remedy but the one gives
a fatal access to the disease which undermines
us. There is but force for him who will not try
affection ; and the present mischief! what is it
but the child of force ? What is
the army of
25,000 men in Ireland—the constabulary—the
yeomanry—the debt incurred before the union—
what, worst of all, is tie fiend-like spirit of
hatred and malignity which desolates the land,
but the effect of that paramount policy—coercion
by the Orange
musket ?—Times.

The Paris
Papersalive to the reputation toD Duke
beke
oefx
os fe etihne
ton. Wellin-
g Journal des Debats of Monday last,
after ll a in inK to the recognition of the blockade
of Oporto, and the imprisonment of English
subjects, observes, « Here, then, conies another,
blockade. It is no longer a Legitimate Ruler
who declares it, but a Crowned Usurper, whose
treason has caused all the Representatives of the
Sovereigns of Europe, including the Ambassa-
dor of England, to flee from his capital. The
question is not now with respect to a port of
the territory on which this Goverinnent dejacto
presses, but a Government fortunately separated
by several hundred leagues from the dominion of
Don Miguel. The English Cabinet under such
circumstauces, enlightened, no doubt, by the
melancholy results of its pitiful policy with re-
gard to Portugal, will resume with dignity the

part which it had abdicated through weakness.
By no means. The Duke of Wellington has
sworn to impress on his Administration a seal
which distinguishes it, we are bold to say, from
all those by which England has ever been
affected. The blockade of Madeira is acknow-
ledged like that of Oporto. In truth, in our
last reflections on the political decline of Great
Britain, we remained below the truth. She
does nut merely sink with regard to the world,
but with regard to herself;--it is no longer
an influential part which she abdicates, but
a voluntary humiliation which she accepts._
There is in this situation something which can-
not last. To avoid making war against Europe
the Duke of Wellington has declared war to
England." The question of blockade reduces
itself to a very narrow compass ; and it is only
the confusion of intellect of the French Jour-
nalist which could have led him to mix up the
question of title to rule with that of blockade.
The English Government, on the present occa-
sion, has adopted no new principle. It has
always, in the various regions of South Ame-
rica, during the protracted warfare between Spain
and her quondam colonies, and betwen Brazil
and Buenos Ayres, and in the Levant during
the warfare between the Greeks and Turks, ac-
knowledged all blockades duly promulgated and
enforced. It has never made any distinction
between a war of colonies against a parent State,
of particular provinces or divisions of an empire
against the rest, and a war of one independent
State against another. When we recognised
the blockades declared by the South Americans
and Greeks, we had Ambassadors at Madrid and
Constantinople. In the same manner we recog-
nise the blockade of Don Miguel, at one time
in his character of Regent, and at another in
his character of usurper. If a revolution had
taken place at Lisbon, and the authors of it had
declared Portugal a Republic, and Oporto held
in the name of Don Pedro in a state of blockade,
we should with equal readiness have acknow-
ledged the revolutionary blockade ,of Oporto.—
This may or may not be a sound rule of action,
but it is, at all events, one which we have not
taken up yesterday. The approbation of the
conduct of a Sovereign, or party in possession
of power, and the neutrality observed with regard
to their acts as belligerents, are quite distinct.
We withdrew our Ambassador from Portugal
because we disapproved of the conduct of Don
Miguel ; but if we had refused to acknowledge
his blockade, we should have done more than
disapprove of his conduct—we should have
taken part against him. We are not obliged to
send an Ambassador to a Court or to continue
one at it ; and to withdraw an Ambassador is
nearly akin to that liberty which, in private life,
induces a man to visit or receive the visits of
another. Neither, because we are on good terms
with a Sovereign, and disapprove of an usurpa-
tion against his authority, are we bound to sup-
port him against the Usurper, arid make our-
selves parties to a civil war. We supported Por-
tugal against inroads from Spain, because we
were bound by particular Treaty to support
Portugal against foreign aggression. The obli-
gation to assist, though limited thus far, was,
however, when lately discussed, deemed exceed-
ingly objectionable ; and were such a treaty to
be proposed for the first time, it would assuredly
be objected to. The French Journalists seems
to think that might constitutes right ; that a
powerful nation ought to have no rule of con-
duct but its own convenience or caprice ; and
that if England have not taken part against Don
Miguel, that circumstance must be take* as a
confession of weakness. No doubt this is pretty
much the principle on which the French Govern-
ment has acted, both before and since the re-
storation of the Bourbons ; for we are yet at a
loss to understand on what other principle the
French entered Spain, having first intrigued
against the Government of the Cortes, than that
of convenience or caprice, except we are to take
in a literal sense what was said by M. de Villele,
we believe, that France was obliged to make war
beyond the Pyrenees, to avoid the necessity of
making it on the Rhine. But that is certainly not
the principle on which we have acted since the
peace at all events. We have scrupulouslyrespected
the rights of all Governments, the feeble as well as
the powerful. In South America complaints have
frequently been made against our Government by
our subjects, that it has so scrupulously respected
the local authorities, and its conduct in this re-
spect has again and again been contrasted with
that of the Government of the United States.
The complaint of over-scrupulosity, therefore, ap-
plied to our Government, is not new, whatever
may be thought of it. The fault, if it be one,
is at all events one which foreign nations ought
not to be forward to object to. But we are pre-
pared to contend that the rule adopted by the
British Government, of observing strict neutra-
lity, not only in wars between nation and nation,
but in civil wars, or wars between different races
in the same territory, as the Greeks and Turks,
is a just and proper one. When it is known
that we are strictly neutral, neither belligerent
can find fault with us. On the other hand, by
acknowledging the blockade of one party, and
refusing to acknowledge that of another, we lay
ourselves open to an accusation ofmix
ingou-
selves up with the quarrel, and, consequently,
lav the foundation for quarrels with the party
supposing itself aggrieved. So much for the
blockades of Oporto and Madeira. if the con-
duct of the Government in acknowledging these
blockades be just, the abuse of the Duke of
Wellington will go for very little. If he procure
for his nation a reputation for political honesty,
for firm adherence to those principles which
ought to govern countries in their relation with
each other, he will be a greater benefactor to her
than if, actuated by that restless ambition of our
Gallic neighbours to display power, he were to
employ the resources of the country in interfer-
ence with the affairs of every other. There is
too much eagerness on the part of our neigh-
bours to be thought great. True greatness is
not so anxious for display. If this country
should be at last forced to draw the sword, the
people will not bear the sacrifices thereby imposed
on them the less willingly, that the Duke of
Wellington used his best endeavours to preserve
peace as long as possible.—Morning Chronicle.
The persevering attempts of factious writers
to depreciate the character of Lord Viscount
Strangford, on account of the transactions which
occurred twenty years ago, can be explained
only by the circumstance of his having acquired
a new and recent claim to the honour of their
hatred, in being distinguised by the confidence
of his Sovereign, and selected by him for a mis-
sion of the greatest delicacy and importance, le
which it appears to be the most anxious wish
of flictioa that he should fail. We feel, how-
ever, base and disloyal as unquestionably are the
motives which actuate the assailants of the Noble,
Lord, that this consideration is not sufficient to
exonerate us from the duty of recalling to the,
recollection of the public the actual occurrences.
out of which the malignant and calumnioUs ac-.