The Sun.
London, England, 1829-04-16 00:00:00

TO THE EDITOR OF THE SUN.

Saa,—l have scarcely enough of physical strength to
hold my pen, but I feel at my heart's core the triumph of
justice over bigotry, which has been achieved in the Lower
House of Parliament; a similar victory, I trust, awaits us
in the Upper House. My immediate object in addressing
these lines to you is to notice the allusion Mr. Sadler has
had the hardihood to make to the execution of the Earl of
Stafford, in support of his argument against conceding the
Roman Catholic Claims, and as proving the propriety of
dissolving the Parliament to ascertain the real sense of the
country. He asserts that " expediency was the principle
which produced that horrid catastrophe." I deny it. He
has forgotten the history of those times, or he would re-
member that it was a weak assent to the delusions, clamour,
and violence of the people which brought that upright,
venerable, and innocent Nobleman to the scaffold ! flume
observes, " This is the last blood which was shed on ac-
count of the Popish plot ; an incident which, for the credit"
of the nation, it were better to bury in eternal oblivion ;
but which it is necessary to perpetuate, as well to main-
tain the truth of history, as to warn, if possible, their pos-
terity and all mankind never again to fall into so shame-
ful, so barbarous a delusion." Thanks to Mr. Sadler then
for this blundering reference. As an old Whig, Sir, 1
would pay every respect to the opinion of the people. I
would allow further, that the voice of the people is always
right, sooner or later ; but that their first impression is
always right, I most positively deny. During Lord Staf-
ford's trial, Hume says, " The clamour and outrage of
the populace, were extreme." But how different was
their deportment at his execution ; and when all the foul
intrigue of the pretended Popish plot was fully developed,
we know the revulsion was so great as to make them "lose
all regard to truth, honour, and humanity." What would it
have profited to appeal to the people either while under the
panic of a supposed Popish plot, or under the excitement
produced by a conviction of its utter falsehood ? " Tumul-
tuous petitions" were resorted to, and as they were the
result of deception then, so are they now. " The terror
of each 'man became the source of terror to another, and
an universal panic being diffused, reason and argument,
and common sense, and common humanity, lost all influence
over them." But mark what follows, speaking of the
trial of the pretended criminals, the historian adds, " the
courts of judicature, places which, if possible, ought to be
kept more pure from injustice than even national assem-
blies themselves, were strongly infected with the same
party-rage and bigoted prejudices." And has there been
nothing like this, Sir, in Ireland ? As then so now, the
public have been made to swallow the grossest absurdities.
And it is a curious illustration of what party feeling will
produce in any age, that as the burning of the city of
London, in 1666, was imputed t the Papists, so was the
burning of York Minster in .1829. I recommend the
perusal of history in the times preceding the Revolution,
to prove the identity of that phrenzied panic which seized
some men's minds then as now. I will make only one
more quotation from flume ; it is part of a speech of some
Noble Lord in those days, and which may serve as a model
fur one of his descendants, in the approaching debate of
England's Peers in 1829. " I would not have so much
as a Popish man or a Popish woman to remain here ; not
so much as a Popish dog or a Popish bitch ; not so much
as a Popish cat to pur or mew about the King." I re-
peat, Sir, that I respect the voice of the people, but
tumultuous petitioning has been always one of the artifices
resorted to in bad and factious times—" an admirable ex-
pedient for spreading discontent, and for uniting the
nation in any popular clamour." Further, Mr. Editor, to
shew first impressions even of the higher orders in society
are not always right ; is it not an historical fact that the
Exclusion Bill of 1688 was opposed by all the Prelates
except two, and only carried in the House of Lords by
a majority of $1 to 49. Public opinion, I apprehend
has undergone a remarkable change, and Mr. Sadler and
Lord Eldon will confess the clergy of those days were
wrong in adhering to the old family, for if their advice had
been followed, we should never have had King William► of
glorious memory on the throne. I trust it is not re-
served for the age we live in, to hear principles the
most opposite to civil liberty enforced from the pulpit, and
adopted in numerous addresses in the same manner as
Charles the Second, was " congratulated on his escape
from Parliaments." The penal statutes and restrictions of
those days were necessary to preserve the Constitution,
but they were not the essence of the Constitution. These
statutes were themselves a salutary breaking in upon the
Constitution, and it is proposed to break in now upon the
Constitution for the same wholesome purpose, the salva-
tion of the Constitution in Church and State, and the
maintenance of the Protestant ascendancy.

Such is my opinion of the policy of the present mea-
sure, that possessing a considerable estate near Wexford, I
consider it worth mere by ten years' purchase than it was
three months ago ; and I am happy to confirm Mr. Peel's
statement in bearing testimony to the peace and harmony
restored to that country, once the focus of rebellion. Sir,
my rent-roll recites a melancholy list of tenants' hanged
and shot in the year of that rebellion. I rejoice, Sir, at
the prospect which is opening upon us, or rather already
realized, when every rival feeling, every invidious and
worthless distinction hiving ceased to inflame the minds
of either Protestant or Catholic, we shall boast of a united
Empire, a tower of strength to ourselves, and of terror to
our. enemies.. . I am, Sir, your's,
SURRIENSIS.