The Sun. — 1824-05-12 (London, England)

CAVAN ELECTION. Mr. ABERCRO3IBY presented a petition from several' Freeholders of Cavan, complaining that the freedom of election had been violated during the late election for the county. The Sheriff, it was said, had notified the election by a placard, Which had a figure of King William on horseback, and other Orange insignia at the head. They said also, that the place of election was surrounded by Orangemen ; that the . voters of the unsuccessful candidate were insulted, and compelled to apply li even to their Sheriff for protection A man's life was lost in the struggle, and a speech was offered to the people by one of the Magistrates to' the Orangemen, saying that " they were a legalized constitutional body." This was not the first provocation which the Petitioners had received on similar occasions. On a former one, a County Meeting to address the Lord Lieutenant, the Orangemen so conducted themselves that the then Sheriff was obliged to dissolve the meeting. The Petitioners prayed that the Sheriff might be called to account for his conduct; and that they might be protected in the enjoyment of such rights as the Constitution allowed them. He (Mr. A.) wished to know how many persons were on the panel of the Jury, which became necessary in consequence- of the loss of' life to which he had alluded ; how many of those were Catluelics, and how many _ Protestants ; how many of each were sworn ; and whether those who were sworn were persons whose names were originally on the panel. In conclusion, he observed, that he was not for putting down any Society merely on grounds relative to political or religious opinion, but solely on account of their conduct. 31r. MAXWELL, as Member for the county of Cavan, produced a copy of the only paper which was sanctioned by the Sheriff at the klection. It was a paper with only the Royal Arms at the head.—(Hear 1)—Ile had, on the Hustings, and afterwards by public letter, disapproved and disavowed the offensive publication alluded to by the Hon. and laearn'ed Geri"tleman. He (31r. M.) regretted that a life had been' 'lost ion the occasion, and he particularly regretted that the offender had never been discovered. The man who was tried on the charge of being the murderer, offered such satisfactory evidence in his defence, that even the Counsel for the prosecution admitted that they had not established their case. With regard to the general charge which was made tegainst Orangemen, he would observe that he was no Orangemen, hut he believed that as a body they were united for the purpose of supporting the laws and religion of. their country, and he had not seen any thing in their conduct to induce a belief that they did not fully act up to their professions. But it had now become the practice to stigmatise them, and to speak of diem and the Ribbonmen.together. Nothing could be more opposite than the views and practices of the two parties. The Orangemen, however, were attacked by many of those who did not dare openly to attack the Protestant religion, and who zhus• indirectly attackeel the religion through the Orange Members of it. The object of the Ribbonmen, their avowed object, was to violate the laws, to destroy all property, and to massacre the Protestants.— (Hear, hear!)