Litchfield enquirer., 1833-09-05
Fcom sh. Ph,noS.lphia Ent.ly;rnu.r.

time past disputing the relative merits of Don Miguel and DOn Pedro. There is. 've should think. no choice in them. They have descen- ded into the nethermost depths of crime.- Both are as selfish, hrufaL and bloody, as hu- man nature can be. Miguel has baIhed his hands in blood. His history will be an unin- terrupted chain HOfhearl-curdling crueIiies. He is monster. who not only disgracesa throne -disgraces the age-but who waald disgrace the guilty crowds of a peniIentiary. His broth CT IS his brother. He was driven by nation Of towards and slaves, from throne (of Bra- gil which he had stained with every crime. His character is blackened with all that is loathesOme and fearfal in humanity. It can not be forgotten that bat few years-siOce. the maledictiOn of a whole civilized world
 fell upon him for kicking his young, innOcent and lovely wife, hen in a situation that would
 have commanded the respectful attention of HOttentOts. or such a monster we can only exclaim with Mscdulf, Fit to reign no not to liue"' Such are the brothers now
 meeting in mortal strife, to decide who shah
 gratify upon the insensate and besOtted na-
 ton which b1eeds between them, their vOlup-
 tuous, brutal and sanguinary passions.
 A curious quarrel is recorded in the late London papers, between MT. O'C0nueH and
 
 resulted as it ought in the entire discomfiture
 ofthe biawIing patriot. The reporiof a speech
 made at tavern by MT. O'C onntl On occa.
 sion of a dinner in honor of Major CaFffrighi. by one Of the reporters of the Times, was on
 subsequent day pronounced by Mir. O'COn- pell in the House of Commons to be " design. edly faIse." Thereupon the reporter puhIsllz ed card, a:erring the general truth and fi- T deity of the report and his colaborators, eleven in number, united with him in public declaration that they would report no speech of Mr. O'C's in the House of Commons. nn- til he retracted and apologized for his unwor- thy assertion. This was hitting the dcciaim- CT for popularity in the right place, and he l felt it to be so for forthwith he moved the House that the yroprietOr and publisher cftAe l Times be summoned to the bar for breach of privilege. He was soon shanled out of the unprecedented call for the proprietor of a newspaper, when there were responsible pub fishers and especially in the case in hand, where the proprietor named was lady :; but as by the absurd and almost obsolete fiction of the British Parliament, it IS a breach of privilege to refer to it's proceedings in news paper, and the letter published by the repor- ters having reference to Mir. O'COnnell as a member of the House of Commons, the mo- tion for summoning the publisher io the bar was reluctantly assented to, and made the or der of the day. When that time arrived. and the order was read in course, motion by MT. Methuen, a member for North Wiltshire, that the order he rescinded, led to a debate, in which the manly scorn and intelligence and spirit Of the House spoke so plainly against :. the intolerance of the mar, who, with liberty ever on his lips, was SO anxious from mere 1 personal pique, 10 abridge that most impor. lt tant of all liberties. the liberty of the Press, that though hr; wirh his squad of 0asUtrti Irish retainers, and some English refOfmers -liberty boys toe-strove hard to maintain 1t, the order was rescinded by vote of 1858 , to 48. Rolled in his attempt. the temper of Mir. O'COnnell so far prevailed over self-re. lt spect. as 10 induce him to move the exclu- sion of all strangers from the galleries, which included the reporters; and as according to the standing order, any one member may at | any time thus shut out the public, the galle- ries were cleared. and the House proceeded s during the rest of the sitting with closed doors. Mr. O'Conaeil gave notice that he would con- d nae tO resort to this course, until justice was te Zone htm-that is. until those he accused of deliberate falsehood" in reporting his speech { ss, should again consent tO report them. The a 'eporters of the Times, ea the day after the sec'si0n of the House. published another let !, ler' m which they thank that body for the $ signal and triumphant vindication afforded by s their vote, and the testimony borne by the leading members of all sides, of the irnpar. lialsty and ability of their reports and there fore that "out of respect to the House of Commons, aad to prevent inconvenience to the public, they will for the future deal with MT. O'Connell as with other members of the House. nO better and no worse-thongh they cannot help feeling the bitierest scorn and contempt for the malignant and malicious falsehood by which they were provoked, but which. on reflection. they almost think ihey degraded themselves by noticing"
 ~. F. American. Among the remedies for what he considers the infidelity of Parliamentary, reports. Mir. O'Connell, in like manner with some equally sensitive demagogues in our own country, proposed that the House should have report CTS 0t its own, who should take down every thing. Upon this, Sir R. Peel remarked ut snce-"I do not hesitate to say, that u my opinion, verbal report ef cur speeches would not raise the character of this House.n The honorable baronet was right, do0btless; yet we are sure that if reporters of skill and fdel- ny could be permanently employed to report yerbatlm the speeches of members of !egisla. tive er municipat bodies. the evil of much aad silly talk would soon be sensihly diminished. More than half the orators of renown here and elsewhere. owe their fame to the nensa