The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1840-06-02 00:00:00

•

Vottrp.

THE OLD ENGLISH CONSTABLE.

I'll sing you a good old song, to a good old English tune,
Of a fine old English Constable in a fine old country town,
Whose business was to catch the thieves and put all rascals
down ;_ _

Who while he watched his neighbour's goods too often lost
his own,

Like a fine old English Constable, one of the olden time.
His cottage was no station house, for he slept there at his
ease,

And he little fear'd the visits of the 'spectors of police ;
He lived respected, and with thanks he pocketed his fees,
While magistrates or villagers he always tried to please,
Like a fine old English Constable, one of the olden time.
His walls they were not hung with swords or Normanby's new
clothes,

But hand-cuffs for the knuckles tight, and quarter-staffs for
blows ;
'Twas thus this worthy sate in state, in doublet and trunk hose,
And quaff'd his pot of good old ale to comfort his old nose,
Like a fine old English Constable, one of the olden time.
He every country gentleman full readily obey'd,
While to the poor he ne'er refused to give his willing aid ;
He was the chosen confidant of every village maid,
The only thing he wanted then was to be better paid;
Like a fine old English Constable, one of the olden time.
Yet all at length must bend to fate, so, borne along the tide,
A victim to reform, at length, a sudden death he died.
And while o'er England's liberties new laws and fashions ride,
Alas ! I fear no country's peace lies buried by the side
Of a fine old English Constable, one of the olden time.
For times and seasons now are changed, old customs pass away,
No longer English hands and hearts will prove old England's

stay ;
Gendarmerie will henceforth be the order of the day,

And we shall think on, with regret, the former happy sway
Of the fine old English Constables, all of the olden time.

MR. FEARGUS O'CONNOR AND MR. DANIEL
O'CONNELL.
(From the Standard.)
The case of Mr. Feargus O'Connor, now a prisoner
on the felons' side in York Castle, in execution of a
similar judgment for a conviction of a seditious libel,
was last night brought under the consideration of the
House of Commons, by Mr. Thomas Duncombe. It
has been already made known to our readers by Mr.
O'Connor's letter to the Leeds Intelligencer, given in
the Standard of Monday, and by the eloquent letter of
Mr. Oastler, published in this paper, that Mr. O'Con•
nor is made the companion of convicted felons in his
cell, compelled to take his meals with felons, and in all
respects identified, as far as the prison arrangements
go, with that utterly degraded class. This is illegal.
Our proof of its illegality is at hand. The Under Se-
cretary for the Home Department, Mr. Fox Maule,
admitting the truth of the description of Mr. O'Con-
nor's sufferings, apologised for their cruelty in the fol-
lowing words. We quote the 411orning Chronicle's
report :
' If there was now a greater degree of severity in the
punishment of persons convicted of political libels than for-
merly was excercised, it was solely to be attributed to the
alterations made in the law with regard to-prison discipline."
We do not admit the truth of all that Mr. Fox
Maule says, for we are convinced that the great seve-
rity which he submits to be practised towards the op-
ponents of ministers through the press—is at all times
the real description of those who are called political li-
bellers—proceeds from the malignity of the govern-
ment, else why do they employ their law officers to
make long speeches in aggravation of punishment ?
But let that pass; it is enough for us to have the con-
fession that a "greater severity" is practised in the
punishment of a certain class of offenders than was
formerly practised. Punishments of " greater seve-
rity" are clearly unusual punishments ; and in the de-
gree of their greater severity cruel punishments. And
what says the law upon this point ? The Bill of Rights—
the great charter of British liberty—worth fifty of the
charters of John—declares, in its second chapter, that
"cruel and unusual punishments shall not be inflicted."
Much as the Bill of Rights has been mangled by libe-
rals in our day, this clause remains still untouched by
any direct enactment, and scarcely any one will dare to
say that this fundamental law can be repealed by a
sidewind interpretation of a statute for the regulation
Of prison discipline. If such interpretations are per-
mitted to avail to this extent, the whole constitution
may be put in danger by every turnpike bill. We hold
that the cruelties practised upon Mr. O'Connor are
illegal, as a violation of the Bill of Rights, and we re-
gret that he has appealed against them to the House of
Commons; and not to the Court of Queen's Bench,
and failing, if he should fail in that court, to the House
of Lords, where he certainly would obtain
.justice. Our
readers will see that so far we treat the question as
strictly a question of law, and as such it is most im-
portant to consider it.
Under tory administrations prosecutions for libels
of every kind were by far too frequent. The late
Right Honourable Spencer Perceval was the only
Attorney-General of those, or of any other times, who,
holding office for years, never filed an ex officio infor-
mation—the only Prime Minister who never persecuted
the press. This is an acknoWledgment due to his me-
mory from our class. He was called a bigot, to be
sure—but he never justly incurred the scandal of
being either a persecutor or a professing liberal, or the
fouler scandal of being both. With the exception of
the time when this admirable gentleman directed the
criminal justice of the country, there have always been
a great deal too many libel prosecutions. It is con-
fessed, however, that if the tories did frequently resort
to the law in the contest with their opponents, they
confined themselves to the use of such punishments
as are warranted by the law; they did not employ
shaving the head, and ducking in dirty water, and
ignominious dresses, and the society of the most odious
criminals, as auxiliaries to a simple imprisonment, the
legal punishment. Their practice might be captious
and stern—and we are far from denying that it was so,
to an impolitic extent—but it had nothing in it of in-
sulting cruelty. It was reserved for liberals—for men
who have climbed to office, and clung to office by the
use of greater crimes than they can ever punish—to
torture and to taunt their dupes and their accomplices.
What, however, can they do ? They have already in-
flicted imprisonment, with a separation of the members
of families, as the penalty of poverty.- They must
aggravate imprisonment, to render it a penalty suitable
for actual otlenceS, and this they have done pretty
effectually by their Prisons -Bill—a Procrustean con-
trivance for reducing all punishments to one degree.
And who are the men practising this wholesale bar-
barity ? " The men," forsooth, "of the people"—the
men who nine years ago carried sedition to the very
limit of open rebelhon in order to fix themselves in
office ; and now hold office by the sufferance of a trea-
sonable conspiracy—a conspiracy that calls itself " Re-
pealers" by day, " Ribbonmen" by night. We entreat
our readers to peruse the following extracts from the
O'Connellite newspapers that have last reached town,
to remember that these newspapers are under a cen-
sorship to Mr. O'Connell as rigorous as any Russian
or Turkish censorship—to remember, too, that Mr.
O'Connell is the master and the sole support of the
ministers who Lave prosecuted Mr. O'Connor, and,
contrary to the provisions of the Bill of .Rights, have
visited him with " unusual and cruel punishments."
We exhort our readers to peruse these extracts, to re-
member what we have suggested, and then to say whe-
ther these extracts are not one thousand fold more se-
ditious and dangerous than anything Mr. O'Connor is
charged to have said or written :
" England has voted for the disfranchisement of Ireland 1
that is a declaration against Ireland—knew Europe—know
Europe, know America--a war of the heart—bitter, relent-
less, perhaps interminable—at this moment exists between
England and Ireland.
" Has not that majority, we ask, in the English house,
virtually committed the Outrage upon Ireland which he de:
seribed ?. Has it not pronounced that Ireland shall be dis-
franchised?

* * * * *
" True, the bill puiporls to be a bill to amend, bat its pro-
visions are all constructed to destroy. Were the motion of
Lord Stanley
merely-general—for leave to bring in a bill to
`amend abuses'—then such arguments might have at least a
show of reason. But the bill contains the provisions which
the proposer means by correction—these provisions are not
amendment, but injury—these, therefore, are the principle
of the bill, and not the name it may be called; and as these
provisions are an outrage oil Irish liberty, and as the English
legislature has sanctioned them, that English legislatare has
actually adopted the principle of breaking down the Irish
franchise! There is 'no getting over this. That bill is now
in charge of Ireland's admitted enemies—every real improve-
ment in that bill wilt be rejected by the House of Lords, and
every mischief will be preserved by that august body.
" Well Ireland has hitherto been passive, because although
the present government, it was known, could not do much
good, it was supposed it could nit least prevent evil. That
decision of the House of Commons hasdispelled that delusion
—and Ireland being now convinced that the government is
powerless in protecting it from mischief—there- will be but
one sentiment—lo rely on ourselves Hurrah for Repeal !"
* * *
" But if it be true that imminent peril threatens the wel-
fare of our country, it is no less certain that we see ample
• means, if not of averting, at all events of more than repair-
ing, any present injury that may be inflicted on this nation.
Aware of the spirit that will rouse our people to resist inso••
lent aggression on our liberties—knowing the position they
will occupy, anti the resolution with which they will fling
back a firm defiance into the teeth of the haughty strangers
who seek to domineer over us, our heart is full of hope, and
we entertain bright anticipations of the happiness that awaits
us. For that happiness we shall have to struggle, but the
prize will more than repay the toil of winning it. Nothing
worth possessing can he had without striving for it. What
so worthy of a struggle as national independence?
" For our part, we must confess that, injurious and in-
sulting though Lord Stanley's bill is, we can scarce regret
its introduction or its success ; false and calumnious though
the facts are on whose assertion its principle is based, yet we
can scarce repress a feeling of pleasure at the falsehood and
the calumny. Sunk into a' quiescent inaction, as the Irish
people have been for some years past, they needed some
strong stimulant to rouse them into vigorous exertion. After
sitting idly down, like the clown in the fable, who, instead
of. setting his shoulders stoutly to the wheel, bawled out to
the gods to extricate his cart from the ditch, they now see
the necessity of :gelling about their work in right earnest.
They now distinctly ace that, during the time in which they
called on England for justice, they not only made no head-
way, but that they have been even carried down the stream.
They know that not only has no principle been asserted in
their favour, but that even some whose justice the govern-
ment has acknowledged and would establish have been ne-
cessarily abandoned, in consequence of the implacable hatred
against Ireland which the English people entertain. We avow
it, it is not with regret that we see the progress of the Scorpion's
bill. Having given a reluctant acquiescence to the suspen-
sion of the repeal agitation for an experiment on English
justice, which we, with the Irish leader, felt to be quite hope-
less, we cannot but rejoice at the introduction of a measure
which must fully convince the most unwilling of the futility •
of hoping for justice or equality from those whose nature it
is to play the tyrant and domineer. Bound, Titan-like, as
our country has been for vultures to prey upon, this last in-
dignity will cause her even in her convulsions to burst her

chains and then with her unfettered hands she shall assume
such an aspect and attitude as shall make the alien_ despots
shrink from a repetition of their wrongs. We know the
Irish people ; we know what they can do whenroused; the
strangers know it too—they have learned it in '29 ; they
must be taught it again. The nation has now a higher ob-
ject in view ; and shall we not now avow our pleasure in that
which has stung the people into the necessary exertion
for its
attainment ? The people are now convinced of the impossi-
bility of obtaining justice from a House of Commons con-
sisting chiefly of foreigners, sitting in a foreign country, and
from a House of Lords composed exclusively of foreigners,
and from a ministry almost the entire of whom will be fo-
reigners, with foreign predilections, and most probably with
violent prejudices against this country, its people, and their
creed. With these convictions now beyond question infixed
in their minds, the Irish nation will no longer consent to be
robbed of that which is the right of every people—namely,
self-government. The Irish nation will henceforward have
for its sole aim to secure for itself the position of a free peo-
ple—a position which no other country possesses superior
means of supporting. As for the vaunting of the English
press, and its talk of using force for the suppression of Irish
agitation, we heed it not; English selfishness or English
sense would know better. We are sure that the repeal, like
emancipation, is to be carried only by moral force ; but we
will, at the same time, say that the Irish nation now numbers
near nine millions : these millions know their own strength,
and how much of British glory has been achieved by Irish
valour. The. English people know that Irish valour is
not to be frightened by empty talk. The Irish people will
work peaceably for the repeal, and the REPEAL OF THE DE-
TESTED UNION THEY SHALL OBTAIN."

Mr. O'Connell himself .had given the key-note in one
of his late letters :

" Is THERE one single man in Ireland so blind as not to
see the utter hopelessness of our obtaining any one particle
of redress of any Irish grievance from this parliament ;
NAY, WHERE IS THE MAN SO STUPID as not to perceive
that we cannot possibly retain even what we now possess?
THE PALTRY instalment of rights which we now enjoy will
manifestly be taken from us, under the present scheme of the
connection between the two countries. This is so manifest
that one weakens the effect of it by repeating the assertion—
THERE IS BUT ONE HOPE—ONE CHANCE—ONE REMEDY—
" THE REPEAL OF THE UNION.
" HURRAH THEN, FOR THE REPEAL !! !

" I demonstrated in the debate that Stanley's bill had its
source, and owed the support it got from two principles of
action—both most discreditable, and one of them most atro-
xiously criminal. Tutu FIRST principle was, NATIONAL
HOSTILITY TO THE IRISH PEOPLE; THE SECOND
principle was—the rancour of malignant bigotry against the
Catholic religion. I showed the existence of these principles
from manifest documentary evidence, though, indeed, no evi-
dence is necessary to show the existence of that which is in
itself self-evidetit. We have, therefore, to encounter NA-
TIONAL. HOSTILITY and rancorous bigotry, operating on the
majority 'Of the British representatives.

Let those submit to Such foul influences who please;
FOR ONE, will not submit to them whilst I can by any energy
rouse the peaceful and legal resistance of any portion of my
countrymen to prevent the fatal results of such base and bad
passions. It is therefore, that 1 SHALL incessantly and
untiringly CALL ON IRISHMEN of every class and persuasion,
either to show me some prospect or chance of redress, or
even of preserving our present stinted privileges ; or, if they
cannot do that—as they certainly cannot—THEN I RESPECT-
FULLY AND EARNESTLY CONJURE THEM, in the venerated
name of Old Ireland, and in the spirit of liberty, to join me
in seeking for THE REPEAL."

All this sound and fury, it is true, describes nothing
that as yet exists in Ireland to any considerable extent;
but it plainly indicates what the writers wish to excite,
and that is nothing less than a war against the people
and parliament of Great Britain, which cannot well be
separated from a war against the Queen; but to levy
war against the Queen is high treason, and, of course,
to excite to such a war must he sedition of the depest
(lye. _ _ _

I - Now, let us not be misunderstood—we are not call-
ing for the prosecution of the writers in the Pilot and
Freeman's Journal, or of Mr. O'Connell, though, ifthe
examples of Cabinet ministers and other high function-
aries had not given a license to sedition, these offenders
doubtless ought to be prosecuted. We do not want to
have Mr. O'Connell's head shaved, his person ducked
in dirty water, or himself imprisoned in the company
of felons—indeed the felons would be beyond calcula-
tion the greatest sufferers by such an association. We
adduce the repeal treason merely to illustrate the mea-
sure dealt out to Mr. O'Connor, by the friends and
servants of the repeal traitors. Has, we repeat our
question, Mr. O'Connor ever written or spoken any-
thing the thousandth part so wicked or so dangerous
as what we have quoted above ? Yet Mr. O'Connor is
punished by " unusual and cruel punishment," and
the repeal traitors are caressed. It is quite clear, there-
fore, that whatever it may be in pretence, the crime for
which in fact Mr. O'Connor is punished is not sedi-
tion. He may or lie may not have been guilty of
sedition ; his offence, if he has been guilty, may have
been light or serious : but whether he is guilty.or not
guilty, more or less, the impunity and even favour ex-
tended to others, manifestly convicted of the most
atrocious sedition, demonstrates beyond all possibility
of doubt, even did not their own former conduct, as in-
cendiaries themselves, prove the same thing—that mi-
nisters do not punish Mr. O'Connor from any abstract
hostility to sedition. For what then is he punished ?
In part perhaps from resentment of his opposition to
the new poor-law--the most hideous of the ministerial
progeny, and, therefore, the darling; in part, perhaps,
we .say, from his opposition to the new poor-law—but,
beyond doubt, in a much greater degree because of his
hostility to Mr. Daniel O'Connell, and Mr. Daniel
O'Connell's hatred to him. The lesser offender is
tortured to satiate the malignant vengeance of the
greater ; and this we call British justice.