The Sun. — 1860-11-27 (London, England)

RIBALDI AND 31AZZIN1.  TO THE EDITOR OE THE TIMES. Sir,—A letter from " X." in your impression of this day has caused me some little surprise. He seems horrified at the intelligence that some of the funds intended for Garibaldi's assistance have fallen into the hands of Mazzini. He seems to deem it a shocking thing to help Mazzini, but a virtuous action to supply Garibaldi. To me the public morality of the one seems to differ little from that of the other. Of their private character I know nothing. Their public acts have this difference— the one has been unfortunate, the other successful. But the public morality evinced by each of them is much on a par. It is, no doubt, a matter for rejoicing that the people of the Two Sicilies should have been freed from a galling tyranny (if such they really suffered), but yet Garibaldi's conduct in freeing them does not seem the less immoral. Grant that he is a brave, and honest, and generous man. He then is worthy of admiration for these virtues, and perhaps for other good qualities also. But yet his public acts, I think, are not the less reprehensible. If a subject were to raise a rebellion against his lawful Sovereign, would you, sir, defend his conduct or argue that the doom of death were not his due ? He might be rising against his King's oppressive rule ; but still you would not applaud the rebel acts. And if a man killed the despot who tyrannised over his country, would you not brand the regicide as a murderer, even while you congratulated the nation on being freed from tyranny ? But is it not a hundredfold worse for a man of another nation (be he Savoyard or Frenchman) to raise a rebellion in a friendly State and shoot down the soldiers who observe their oath and defend their lawful Sovereign ?  If Napoleon were to publish a pamphlet to commiserate the Irish on the score that they are oppressed and that their religion is not respected, and were then to invade and conquer that country (which he would call "freeing an oppressed nationality") without having made any previous declaration of war, would you not condemn him in the most powerful of philippics ? But would it not be far worse for a private individual— M‘Mahon for instance—to raise a rebellion in Ireland while France remained at peace with us? And if France supplied him with money, arms and ammunition, would you not lavish the most opprobrious epithets both upon the marauder and on the perfidious country which gave him countenance and assistance ?  Let us not excuse ourselves on the ground that Naples was oppressed while.lreland is free. This is merely a veil to blind our moral sense. We have read in the newspapers that Naples was oppressed. That is all we know about it. IVPIVIahon might have read in a certain pamphlet that Ireland is oppressed and that the exercise of the religion of the Irish is restricted, and he may entertain an opinion that such is really the case. How would the objection then apply ? But even if we were to grant the substance of this objection ; yet if a man who did not suffer from the oppression which we allow to have existed—who was not connected with the country which he invaded, and whose Sovereign and people were at peace with the State which he overturned—l say that the act of such a man is no better than the act of a Filibuster, murderer, and cutthroat adventurer. By these terms he would have been designated, and people would have welcomed for him the fate which was adjudged to Walker for the same offence, had not success palliated his trespass and gilded his crime. I remain, Sir, your obedient servant,