The Sun.
London, England, 1839-04-16 00:00:00

mcnt of the Irish estates, the tenantries were in a state of im-
provement, contentment, and tranquillity. A change took
place in the management, and other persons came who disre-
garded the contracts, and refused to perform the promises made
to the peasantry, and the result was one of the most inhuman mur-
ders that had been committed—worse than that of Lord Norbury,
because it was perpetrated with the intention of wreaking ven-
geance on the father for the murder of his infant son. Mr.
Bowen was a Police Magistrate, was the victim of a regular
conspiracy, five or six men hired from a distant part of the
country had waylaid him, shot him, and left him dead on the road,
'leaving 5001., which he had with him in his porstnanteau un-
touched, thus showing that revenge not plunder wastheir object.
What was the cause of this ? When Mr. Bowen first came into the
county, there were no Orange Lodges, but he brought a set of
policemen with him, who were all Orangemen. They insti-
tuted an Orange Lodge unto the utter dismay of the people of
the county, and on the that of July they perambulated the
county, decorated with orange lillies, this murder occurred
during the Government of gentlemen opposite ; and it
had never been brought as a vote of censure against
that Government; the Opposition did not deal with
that Government as they themselves had been dealt with, they
had not held the Right Hon. Gentleman responsible for every
murder committed, or for the disorganization of every parish,
and it was reserved for the party spirit of the present day to
resort to such means of annoying political opponents. Having
thus endeavoured to answer the statements of the Hon. Gen-
tleman, he would ask the House to support this motion, not
for the sake of the Government, let them move a vote of
want of eonfidenee in the Government to-morrow,
but if the present Ministry went out of office, let them at
least bequeath, as a legacy to their successors, the necessity of
pursuing a liberal policy towards Ireland. He knew it had
been said that they sought to entrap the House of Commons
into a vote of general confidence. They did no such thing, the
vote was a vote of approval of their Irish policy, and went no
farther, and would be made no other use of, but they did not
shrink from the discussion of a vote of want of confidence, if
such a motion were brought forward they would not abandon
any 'one principle which had guided the Government
for the purpose of conciliating any opponent. But
in sittting down he would describe the position in which
the country would be placed, not in language of his
own, nor in that of a political friend, but in the
language of a political partisan of gentlemen opposite, who
gave early proof of his great genius. Mr. Croker, in de-
scribing the state of Ireland, says that it should not be for-
gotten that the Irish Parliamentary factions had survived the
Irish Parliament, and disturbed the Imperial Legislature by
brandishing Ireland against every Minister of the day, and he
cemplained not more of the neglect of the Administration,
than of the hollow professions and hypocrisies of that Adminis-
tration, and he would put it to the Right Hon. Gent. opposite,
whether,as Mr. Croker had stated, this question had not been made
a weapon of party warfare, instead of looking to the improve-
ment of Ireland—( Opposition cheers)—he wished those cheers
had been heard in the House of Lords when the motion was
brought forward and he hoped that the Members of this House
would have the spirit to defend themselves, and to protect the
berties of their constituencies.
Mr. E. TENNENT moved the adjournment of the debate
11 to-morrow.
The House adjourned at Half-past Twelve.

METROPOLITAN POLITICAL

SUMMARY.

The Morning Chronicle of this day observes, in the 1
course of a leading article on last night's debate in the ,
House of Commons—" From the opening speeches on
both sides, it is obvious that the Tories will reap no laurels
from their present aggressive movement. Lord J. Russtll
showed that he knew how to improve the advantage which
his opponents had given him, by choosing Ireland as their
battle ground. His speech was altogether one of the best
he ever made ; while, on the other hand, Sir Robert Peel's
was a lumbering, disjointed effort which betrayed a con-
sciousness on the part of the speaker that he was
supporting a bad and a hopeless cause. The gins-
tiln that has been raised, and in which we have
taken a decided part, whether the Government could long
maintain its ground against the Tories, without assuming a
more popular complexion, has evidently been of the
greatest service to Ministers. We were carried back last
night-in imagination to the period when Lord J. Russell
denounced the evils of the nomination system, and roused
throughout the country the enthusiasm which enabled Mi-
nisters to carry the Reform Bill. His speech was able
and uncompromising, and every now and-then obscrvatior.s
fell from him from which important inferences may be
drawn. In short, it has been proved in this, as in many
other cases, that the best friends are not always those who
shrink from telling them unpalatable truths. The glimpses
of great theories afforded by Lord J. Russell gave us great
satisfaction. We hail them as auspicious to the cause of
Reform." In another leading article our Contemporary re-
marks as follows :—" The amendment, or rather the ad
dition, proposed by the lion. Member for Finsbury to Lord
J. Russell's motion, has this peculiar recommendation, that
it is absolutely essential to the efficiency of the original
proposition. Those who support the motion, yet oppose
the addition, will thereby nullify their own votes."
The Times contains a summary of last night's debate in
the House of Commons, wherein, speaking of Lord J.
Russell's speech, our Contemporary says—" Be had ob-
viously been bestowing considerable pains on it; but he
seemed to be oppressed with the hopelessness of bis cause,
and fought with the air of a man who felt his life to be in
his enemy's hands." In another article, on the subject of
Ireland and the Ministerial policy pursued in that country,
the Times makes these observations :—" The vi hole stand
of the Government having been destroyed in the House
of Lords by the explosion of its grounds from
under it, the Ministers hit upon the device of call-
ing upon the other House to make their position
good again. Every word of what had been said in
the Lords is now to be unsaid in the Commons; the
resolution at the tail of which the Whig gentlemen
are to be dragged through the dirt, being, not that there
is this, that, or the other palliation for the non-administra-
tion of the law by this Government ; but that under, and
by means of, this Government the law has, in fact, been
effectually administered. The resolution is either a quibble
. . . .

intended to catch votes by a meaning which its iuthors

dare not enunciate in express terms: or it is an absolute
untruth, averring in the House of Commons a state of cir-
cumstances which in the House of Lords has been confes-
sedly dispersed."
The Morning Post, alluding to last night's debate in
the Commons, says :—" Lord John Russell was tame,
querulous, and sombre. He spoke like a man who felt that
he stood upon losing ground. Sir Robert Peel was calm,
argumentative, energetic, and convincing, but very cau-
tiously abstained from any tone of triumph, et any indica-
tion of eagerness to possess himself of official power. The
most important part of Lord John Russell's speech, as a
matter cf news, was the conclusion of it, in which he ad.
verted to the p oposed amendment of M. T. Duncombe,
and the probable standing or falling of the present Govern-
ment. It is not very distinct, and seems indeed to indicate at
once an apprehension of falling, and a determination to
stand."

The Morning Herald comments in the following strain
on Lord John Russell's speech in the House of Commons
last night :—" The Noble Lord felt that he was on his
trial before the country—charged with the most discredit-
able off•nces, and provided with no means of effective de-
fence. His manner was confused ; his tones were tremu-
lous ; his speech was worthy of his manner. It proved to
he the most rambling and inconclusive effusion that was
ever, perhaps, addressed to the House of Commons by a
Ministerial leader placed in a position of great interest and
difficulty. Vast as is the superiority to all his opponents
which Sir Robert Peel invariably displays in debate, never
perhaps did he more triumphantly than last night vindicate
his unquestionable intellectual supremacy in the House, of
Common'."
The Morning Advertiter makes the following remarks
on Lord John Russell's speech :—" A more masterly
performance the House of Commons has rarely or ex cr wit-
nessed. Calm in expression, pregnant with facts, skilful
in argumentation, and manly in be.aring, few speeches have
ever been delivered in the House of Commons which can
be compared with it on any of these points. With regard
to the speech of Sir Robert Peel, the less we say for his
fame, as the leader of his party, the better."