In consequence of a statement in a Ministerial Sunday paper
called the Observer, which blazons the Roval arms over its paragraphs and boasts of great Court patrarenre, Sir Ilobert Peel has sent the following letter to that journal. The purport of the Obswer's assertions will be perceived from the quotations introduced jut° his letter by Sir Robert.
'• TIM EDITOR Or THE OBSERVER.
" Drayton Manor, Fin' -\ WV:n..14,1839.
" have just seen a paragTap': in the e nn:' .yeiterlav, which I mu ml have let paes without tee seee test netiee, e lealrt.:'d. that the tatements therein were mod. in am. -
"The statements to which I Si are the following-
" That certain Protestants in Ireland, 'had dein:nu:01 to know in plain terms whether the advent of Toryism was in reality to be the signal for civil war in Ireland.'
" That 'time answer given on b2half of Sir Robert Peel was to this effect— that it was required for tie sustenance of the Tory porty to beep and enforce the Nu-Popery feeling ia England, hut that there was no design of pushing the exterminating prlociple in Ireland so thr net nail.: to excite rebellion.' That it was addod That the necessiths of the pa:ty re1uir,o1 suLh expe- dients, and that in the the end must be talien to ju lit the means of deceit and fidsehood by which it wits brought aboat.' " You proceed to observe, that • .yon cam, st mm i.4.11 the most poeitive au- thority that such language has been held. ,ach xphinations made, such excuses given by persons who sp,ak the sentim.,us 4 Sir tiolcrt Peel : ' and to this you add, that you trii-t you have prov,:d that there is no term of abuse sulticiently strong to mark the infamy te, such douldc-foe,d " Now, as it is utterly nut run,', so fir a, I am com.orae:, cr have any know- ledge, that any ruch or similar comminlications hove heen 1111 le, directly or indirectly, on the part of Irish or other Pr.oestants, or that. Ivith my sonction or cognizance, any such explanations have lie 'n en. Inc language held, as that to which you reret —as, in short, 1 11,1,.,..r on,. %von', ..11 the sul..'leet of these alleged vommuu:,.-t`ions and explanatio.o, nutil 1,0,ad the article m the Observer—I cannot doubt, after the de,daration: yim 1::tve made fie 10 the WahOrely you have spoken, :Ind conti,l, ring the tcrnis.you have applied to the policy which you impte to in' in. that ou consi,I,c au rct of common j toa lee to declare phlic y what is that pos:!ive hority upon • Alich your statements have heel: made, tool wlm are the panh.s who have professeit to give answere on my behalf and to sp,:ak " I am, Sir, your obedient servant, lt Ronr.n.c Pct." The Observer had nothinmc better to say in reply to this letter, than that its statement 1MS made on " the most posit lye' authority," at the same time admitting its implicit belief of the truth of Sir Robert Peel's denial.
Previous page
