24 SEPTEMBER 1836, Page 5


" Darrynane Abbey, 15th September 1836.

" Sir-I request you will print the enclosed letter to the working editors of the London Times newspaper in the next number of the Pilot, and send to each of them a paper. Direct to Printing-house Square, London. It may be thought by some that I should treat t lie attacks or the tile Times with silent contempt. I agree as far as the contempt, but I totally differ as to the silence. The vile wretches who conduct that iufarnous print may imaghte that their assassin threats could terrify me. They are raistassa. I defy them in private as I do in public ; and I feel a pleasure in their at- tacks, because I easily draw tw,,cmiclusions from them. The first is-that they prove by the falsehood they charge against me that the truth would not serve their im- pose; and secondly, they cause just and reasonable nem to iteptire into the facts of my domestic life; and if the result of such inquiry were unfavourable, I should de- serve and submit to reprobation. But as I have no tears on that score, I court impel not shrink from it.

" The which menaces me on account of Lord Lyndhurst can, I believe be easily traced to a • familiar friend ' of his Lordship, who is worthy to be an occa- sional writer in the Times. Nous verrons.' " Send a paper to such of the London journals as do not-if any such there be-re-

ceive the Pilot. "I have the honour to be your faithful servant. " DANIEL O'Cormau."


Darrynane Abbey, 15th September 1536.

" The following paragraph appears iu several :lee simpers, as copied from the journ. 1 of which you are the principal writers. It is an exquisite specimen of the favourite style of that party to whose base passions you are the mercenary panderers. ' What an unredeemed and unredemnable se,undrel is this O'Connell, to make such a threat, and at such a time tool If he has not lied inure Melly than it coo Id have entered into the imagination of- the Devil himself to lie, he makes the threat with his own wife dying under his very eyes! Oh, hole long Mall ..ateh a wretch as this be tolerated among civilized men! But let him mark us well as surely as he dares to invade the privacy of the lite of Lord Lyndhurst. or of any other man, woman, or child, that may happen, by themselves or their relatives, to he !opposed to him in politics, so surely will we carry the war into his domiciles at Darrynaue and Dublin, and show up the whole brood of O'Counells, young and old.' " Of course it is not my purpose to bandy vituperative words with creatures so iota- rally contemptible as you — and — are. Your rascality is purely venal, tuld' Las uo more of individual malignity in it than inevitably belongs to beings who sell their souls to literary assassination, and who from their nature would be actual assassins, if they lived at the period of history when the wages of villains of that de- scription boron reasonable proportion to the lure you receive 'for a different, only be- cause a bloodless atrocity.

" My object is simply to announce to you three things :

" First —That in my own name, and in the names °ribose who inhabit the 'domiciles of Darrynane and Dublin.' and also • ef the whole brood of O'Connells, young and old,' I hurl at you- -foul miscreants as you are 1-the most contemptuous and emphatic de- fiance. As far as I am personally concerned, you shall lie with the most perfect im- punity. I will not resort to any means, legal or otherwise, to prevent or punish you as regards myself; neither will I condescend to contradict a single falsehood you pub- lish. As to my family, you are equally defied to state one single (ha derogatory to their private honour or personal integrity. You have the truth of their private lives flse indignantly on your foul throats. They arc, blessed be God, unstained as they arc:perished. Defiance, loud and indignant, is hurled at you, vile instruments! and at ) our more vile employers.

Secondly-I am at present under no promise or pledge to enter upon the private life of Lonl Lyndhurst-not the least ; but I will pledge myself to this-that if there be not a disclaimer of any connexion between him and the above paragraph. I will inquire into his private life. The fury of your partisanship. the rabid rage with which you assail me on his behalf, would naturally excite a suspicion that there was ' some- thing rotten' in the history of the present leader of the Tory faction. If it be so in fact and truth, and that such rottenness be of a nature to render him unfit to take& prominent part in politics, it will be my duty-and i pledge myself to perform it--to carry his own threat, through you, into retaliatory effect, and to do that firmly and fully which you pretended to anticipate.

" Thirdly-1 will not have my retaliation incomplete; and insignificant as you natu- rally are, l will give your own histories. I will also meet your employers foot to foot. I can easily make a case, at an inconsiderable expense, to discover, by the aid of a bill in eqeity. all the proprietors of your paper-all those who live on the wages of your literary prostitution. I will feel justified, not in beginning the attack, which I have not dm.e, but in retaliating fully on you and all your employers. • The Last Rose of Summer' shall not be left' blooming alone ;' you shall cause his unlovely compa- nions' lobe dragged as soon as you please through the mud and mire of your own flinging. "I do not condescend one remark on the turpitude of the party to which the Times is now attached, and whose patronage it earns by a political and personal meanness hitherto unknown in the history of British literature. You have made literary vileness a by-word. It is really discreditable to Britain that it should be known that so much atrocity, so depraved, so unprincipled a vileness as the Times has exhibited, should have found any countenance or support. As to me, the only sentimeets 1 entertain (The Standard has taxed its ingenuity to prove that Mr. O'Connell did threaten an attack on the private life of Lord Lyndhurst, but fails to make out its point. The writer of the article in the Times, which provoked O'Connell's letter to the editors gf that paper, felt conscious that no attack on Lyndhurst's private claracter was intended ; and therefore be was guilty of the fraud of forging the word " private," and marking it as a quotation. The Standard takes no notice of this,— a fact which is a sufficient reply to its volunteer defence of the Times. Yesterday, the Times, in an article which betrays much soreness, though bullying in its tone, again applies the phrase "unredeemed and unre- deemable scoundrel" to O'Connell. Surely:the "familiar friend," who is supposed to be the author of this scurrility, had better avoid pro- fane allusions to redemption.]