The Sun.
London, England, 1837-06-05 00:00:00

SPIRIT OF THE PUBLIC JOURNALS.

We were rather amused, we confess, in looking over
the pages of one of our Sunday Contemporaries, to
' kill with which it usually contrives to direct
see
-z.t. Mr. Borthwick brings for-
tteeame to one puz
ward a liili ft? the
,purp.ose or more money
into the pockets of the Estblislied Clergy: calls
it an Education Bill. The House adjourns, as it was
natural it should do, in order to get rid of tiiis frivolous
and foolish proposition. The Ministry, however, he
it remarked, teite againgt the adjournment, which is
carried by Mr. Borthwick's own friends. This is one
case. Now for another c. Sir W. Moleswortl4 at the
commencement of the Session, gave notice of a motion
for reforming the House of Lords. The motion was
judged by most sensible people, both in its wording
and its purport, to be (to say the least) inconvenient
and ill-timed ; and had it come on, the Government
would necessarily have opposed it. Sir W. Moles-
worth abandons his motion ; seeming at last to
think for himself, as most of his best friends
thought for him some months ago. What does this
prove? Mark the sequitur of these two extraordinary
facts. Mr. Borthwick's bringing forward his measure,
which was done on an open night, when no Govern-
ment could have opposed his doing so, and the adjourn-
ment, against which the Government voted, taking
place. This is urged as one of the proofs that Minis-
ters are not making every effort to carry on the public
business of the House. " Here is Mr. Borthwick
bringing forward his Bill of education," says our Con-
temporary : " why dont Government bring forward
their Imprisonment for Debt Bill ?" Mr. Borthwick's
Bill is brought forward because Mr. Borthwick has a
right to bring forward his Bill in opposition to the Go-
vernment ; and the House adjourns because it chooses
to do so, in spite of the Government. The House
may be to blame, and Mr. Borthwick may be to blame,
but who else is to blame, unless it be our Contempo-
rary, for his very singular logic, we certainly are at
a loss to discover. But Sir William Molesworth
abandons his reform of the Lords. He abandons a
motion against which the Government would have
contended, and which most of the more moderate
Reformers thought should at all events be postponed.
What a blow to the Government I argues the Paper
we allude to—what a clear proof that the more mode-
rate Reformers were wrong ! Sir William Molesworth
actually withdraws a motion that would have been op-
posed by the one, and which was condemned by the
other. How clear it is that Reformers ought to go
faster, when the gentleman who was for starting and
continuing at the top of his speed deems it necessary
or prudent to sober in his course 1 We refer to these
remarks not with any to our Contemporary, not
with any wish to enter into altercation with him—all
such altercations we think between Liberal men and
Liberal Journals should, as much as possible, be
avoided ; but in vindication of the course we have
generally adopted, as well as in vindication of a Ministry
which seems to us to have deserved well at most times,
and more especially at this time, when assuredly it
ought not to be lightly attacked or unjustly accused by
Reformers, confronted as it stands—because it has
acted boldly, because it has acted spiritedly, as well as
judiciously on behalf of the Dissenters—by all the
malevolence of party zeal, the workings of tempo-
ral interest, and the prejudices of mistaken bigotry.
Another Contemporary's conduct is far more in-
telligible, and affords a capital lesson, we think,
to the party, " the Whigs," whom it is addressed
to. "We trust," says the John Bull, alluding to
Lord John Russell's motion on Church leases,
which stands for Thursday, " we trust that no Whigs
will vote for an inquiry into the practicability of a
measure, for which measure they have already voted."
Why not ? If men have voted in favour of the prac-
ticability of any measure, and that measure has been
opposed because impracticable, the very first step they
should naturally be most anxious to take, is one show-
ing that they were right in considering the measure in
question practicable, and that their adversaries were
wrong in treating it as impracticable. It would be a
sorry proof of the strength of their own case, if they
were not anxious for this. But mark the usual march of

Tory tactics ! A measure is brought forward. " Pass
such a measure I" say the Tories, " why you ought
to be ashamed of yourselves for talking of such a
thing ; the measure is impracticable." " Well," you
say, " we will inquire into the practicability of the
measure, if you please." " What," is the rejoinder,
" will you be such fools I will you so stultify your-
selves, as to inquire into the practicability of a mea-
sure which you have declared practicable ?"
" So ductile dullness new meanders takes."

The measure is rejected because inquiry is wanted,
and inquiry is rejected because the measure is claimed.
The same instructive journal has_ a long article, and
promises another long article, upon Westminster !
What Westminster still ? It was said of the Scotch,
.hat never having gained but one battle over the Eng-
h. " Bannockburn" was neve- It of their mouths,

Asn, _ ou_ kleA.
The valour of the Scotch was pre-eminent—they had
vanquished at Bannockburn ; " not a word about any
other battles," if you please, would the Laird say to
his minstrel. So with Westminster and poor Sir
Francis. There is a gentleman of Tory politics famous
for his skill in singing " The dog's-meat man." We
cannot help suspecting this gentleman, to whom the
image must be familiar, without making such frequent
use of the name of " Burdett." What nobler animal

in his youth than the horse ?—high-spirited, eager, his
nostrils extended, panting for the course. But he gets
old, feeble, his spirit and his strength fail him, and at
last he dies, or is killed, and cut up, and hawked about
as doer's meat—made to minister to the appetite of a
pack of worthless curs, who go yelping after the cart,
and, at each vociferous mention of their food by the
dog's-meat man, burst into a new halloo, which be-
troys equally their greedy nature and their starving
condition. Let us now, for ourselves, look at the
state of business before the House, and also at the
prospects of the Tories. It has become a common cry
to say, " there is no business done, and there is no
business doing, the House is idle," and the like. Now
what is the proper course to remedy this ? A kind of
idea has gone abroad that Parliament every week should
have the conclusion of some important measure to an-
nounce—that the brains of Members of Parliament are
so peculiarly organised that they should be able to
atte:id to half a dozen important queftions in all their
bearings, and that these measures should fly with such
a rapidity through both Houses as should even leave
importunity behind. It is altogether forgotten that
the very slowness of the proceedings of Parliament is a
cunning and wary device framed not against the
people, but for the people, and with a view to let pub-
lic opinion watch and follow. carefully and comment fully
upon all laws and measures in their several stages, so
that the public may either express their entire
dissatisfaction with them, or wish for their amendment.
It is forgotten, too, that though there may be sufficient
time to crowd various great measures before the country
and into Parliament at the very same moment, that while
each is jostling for public attention, none come fairly
before it ; if these things were remembered it would be
seen that if there be a fault at present it is not that
of having too few, but very frequently that of at-
tempting to have too many, questions stirring at once.
There are at present carried, or partly carried, the Irish
Municipal Bill, the Marriage Registration Bill, the
Irish Poor-law Bill ; and in addition to these measures
there are two others for the settlement of Church-rates
and Irish Tithes, of the greatest importance to the
content and peace of England and Ireland. The Abo-
lition of Debt Bill is also to be proceeded with this
session ; nor must we forget that Bill which is mate-
rially to mitigate the ancient severity of our criminal
code. What man in his senses will say that in these
questions, not idly and prospectively agitated, but agi-
tated by Government with the view of converting them
immediately into laws, there is not quite sufficient to oc-
cupy, if there is not indeed sufficient to distract, the public
mind. The only excuse fur there being so many is,
in our view, one of the grounds of atccusation against
there being so few—viz., that some have been before
through one House of Parliament, and are already
pretty well known and considered. " Why," say some
people, " some of the measures now again brought
forward arc merely old measures—last Session's mea-
sures'." What, then, are not last Session's measures
to be again brought forward ? Is not this the only
way of carrying any measure ? Must not there be in
every country like ours, where there is, thank God,

pts

I

: ----. ieerAol
)
constant discussion, variety of jailopinicae?-30•0# r*i, )
hostile opinions to be vanquished buketekiei'M-\Wat iiit:47:
cussion, by patience, by perseverance \_ 'Sitin-p -Ig''''''*/
argue as if they thought the whole advallwrildt-fin- -
ing forward any scheme was to occasien a crirtari;i4jigkz
about it, partly arising, perhaps, from the very novelty
of the scheme itself, and that then, forsooth; it might
be laid on the shelf, and give place to sonic new scheme,
which was in its turn to be equally prolific of debate
and barren of utiiiiy. But then old measures should pass
through less tedious i I—forms are very ricketty
~:rrns
thinge—to be preserved at all they must be preserved
steadily ; and it is here as elsewLere, if you wish to pre-
serve what is sufficient, you must preserve, perhaps,
accounting for the natural and constant weal and tear
of importunity and impatience,
a little more than is
sufficient. If we are wise in passing laws which are to
affect the people slowly and cautiously, so that the
people may have on all occasions full cognizance of
those laws, there will be some occasious, doubtless,
where we might profitably pass them quicker. But it
is this which we wish especially to impress upon our
readers—that the House of Commons is not to be con-
sidered as a patent and speedy grinding-law-machine,
which is to reduce all things thrown into it with the
best possible speed into legislation ; nor is the time in
which the House of Commons can do these things
alone to be considered. The country is to be consi-
dered also. Its attention ought to be kept concen-
trated as much as possible on that number of measures
on which it is possible to concentrate attention, and
not distracted and diffused by a multiplicity of measures
which might possibly be carried, but which could not
be reflected upon. In these observations we pass no
blame on those gentlemen who make at certain times
what may be called speculative motions. It is right
that the country should be prepared for legisla-
tion as well as that the House should legislate, that
preparation is afforded by such motions. On the
contrary, what we contend for is, that there should
only be a small and convenient number of practical
measures proposed in each session ; that the fault is
rather on the side of there being too many than too
few of such measures ; and it is even better that a cer-
tain portion of time should be what is called " lost,"
or merely speculatively and preparatively occupied,
than that it should be attempted, because there is a
spare evening, to thrust into it some new and crude
law, and then to call this fussing, fidgeting, itch after
statute-making, doing business. Now for the pros-
pects of the Tories. They seem to have two species of
advocates—those who are opposed to all change and im-
provement, and those who advocate the widest and most
sudden changes as the only improvement. The first
are well known, and as thoroughly hated. To the last
we address ourselves. They are very few : they ap-
pear in one or two of what have been called the
" Tory Radical" papers, but they appear nowhere
in public life ; or, if they do appear, Mr. Roebuck,
should he, as it is said, pursue a course which he
has not yet pursued, and which we do not think he
will pursue, is the only person of any note amongst
them. We say that we do not think that Mr. Roe-
buck will take this line, because it is quite clear to us
that is not for his interest, nor the interest of any
sensible man, well disposed to advance the doctrines
of liberty and maintain the peace of the country, to
take it. It is evident that the present Government,
representing almost every section of Reformers,l"goes
as far," to use the cant phrase, as the great body of
Reformers, constituting a majority in the House of
Commons and the country, will allow it to go. No
other Liberal Ministry going much further—certainly
none going to the lengths of that section called Ultra-
Radicals—could be constituted. The Liberals have,
then, as a body the only, or almost the only (there
might advantageously, perhaps, be some personal ad-
missions), Administration that can be formed. They
go as far as their majority in the House and the country
goes. If that is not far enough, what they do is throwing
no impediment in the way of what is afterwards to
be done. If reason and reflection arc on the side of further
changes than they are disposed to advocate, reason and
reflection will make its way in the country, and those
changes will arrive not the less easily, will not be the
less cheerfully conceded, nor the less warmly supported
when they arrive gradually, by degrees, as the next
necessary steps to the steps just taken, without shock,
without tumult, and without convulsion. The only,
persons, then, having liberal ends, and willing to pur-
sue them through Tory means, are those who, using
the common phrase,
,say, " Things must be worse
before they are better ; ' and wish to make that excite-
ment which misrule creates the minister to good Go-
vernment. This is very much like the Minister who
excites the people to an untimely rebellion for the pur-
pose of suppressing all freedom. The morality is the
same in both instances. You ,sanction what you
know is bad for what you hope may produce good.
But the flames which the tyrant excites have
sometimes destroyed his own power; and the ty-
ranny which the demagogue would favour, by
sanctioning anarchy, has sometimes produced ser-
vitude. At all events we, and, as we believe, the
people of England, are opposed to this crooked
policy and system of desperate measures. That people
—attached to the principles of the great change in
our Constitution which took place in 1830—are desi-
rous to see those principles carried out, resolutely but
temperately, neither wishing to see them impelled for-
ward by the violence of one party, nor driven back-
ward by the violence of another. A Tory Govern-
ment to them, ‘s hether it is to be the stable means of
maintaining servitude and corruption, or whether it is
to be the temporary means of producing anarchy and
confusion, is equally obnoxious, and more especially
obnoxious at a time when speculation, carried too far
at home, but which seems to have been carried to the
very last limits of extravagance and absurdity on the
other side of the Atlantic, has produced a state of
things, not awful, not tremendous, not such as should
excite unbounded alarm, or perpetuate inveterate mis-
trust, but such as must necessarily excite attention,
and will, for the sake of renewing and main
taming credit, require all the consideration and care of
a Government in which the people can place confi-
dence, and under which in times of unparalieled diffi-
culty they have for seven years enjoyed prosperity and
peace.—illorning Chronicle.
There is not a true Englishman who has not felt
"or many months that which we demonstrated in the
rist number of this journal—that his noble country is
without a Government," and that the name of a

Government, without the benefit of one, is an impu-
dent usurpation, and an ignominious fraud. What
have these mean pretenders, now wearing the livery of
office and pocketing its wages, done on which to found
any title to the rank or quality of Ministers in the poli-
tical signification of that word ? They set out by
declaring that certain measures, termed in their vocabu-
lary " reforming" measures, • were indispensable to the
well-being of the kingdom. They announced that
the purpose with which they undertook the Govern-
meet was to carry such measures, which were likewise
called for by the entire nation, or the bulk of it. We
have already seen that towards ths accomplishment
of one of those measures—viz. that for stripping
the Irish branch of the Protestant Church of its
property, and transferring the said property to the
hands of a Papist enemy—the Melbourne Cabinet
have not during two years advanced a single step,
although the scheme in question was notoriously made
by them the grand test of their principles of civil and
ecclesiastical government for Ireland, and the rallying
point for all their supporters. It is the same in effect
with regard to the Bill for Irish anti-Protestant cor-
porations. That was from the first to be a most im-
portant and peremptory feature of Whig O'Connell
policy. Since the defeat of the Irish Church Robbery
Bill, owing to the exposure of its endless mischiefs,
and to the abandonment of it by most of those who
had been its original supporters—since that signal and
mortifying defeat, the municipal project has stepped
into the shoes of the Tithe Bill, and has been dubbed
by the Cabinet spokesman "the vital" ineasun% Has
the second sample of vitality, then, made any better
progress than that which it superseded ? Not a bit :
there it lies, at the threshold of the House of Lords, a
torpid embryo of Popish trickery and falsehood, under
sentence of suspended animation, if not of death,
according to the more or less envenomed nature of
other offspring from the same foul bed, with which
it waits to . be associated. The Irish Poor-law
Bill, which was looked forward to by the House
of Lords as the most natural means of sup-

plying a scale of qualification for burgesses under
the Corporation I iii, and thus determining the
judgment of the Peers upon tilt: last-mentioned
of those two measures, has been so grossly and kna-
vishly misconstructed, as to satisfy every discerning
person that the intent of the framers was to have. the
Bill so retarded in the House of Commons that for
'want of time it must he thrown out by the Lords, and
an outcry thus raised against the latter assembly as,
being an obstacle in the way of' " liberal ingislation.
And in what concerns the Bill for bribing the political.
Dissenters here, the same shuffling and fraudulent
course has been pursued by Ministers as that by which
they have deliberately 'battled the fulfilment of their
own pledges to the Irish Papists for the subversion of
the Church in Ireland. They introduced a Bill for
robbing the Bishops and Chapters throughout England
of their property, to the amount of the whole contribu-
tion, hitherto paid by a levy upon all proprietors (Dis-
senters included) under the name of Church-rates.
Their Bill for that praiseworthy purpose they knew- they
could never carry. What matter ? They brought it in.
It was all but thrown out even by the House of Coin,
mons, being resisted by Sir Robert Peel and the Con-
servatives mainly on the ground that the proposed
plunder of the Clergy was an open attack upon the first
principle of an Established Church ; and what is to be
their mode of extrication from this not unforeseen di-
lemma? Why, as usual. a Committee to inquire': To
inquire into what ? Into the management of Church
leases. And what has the management of Church
leases between two voluntary and consenting parties,
viz., the lessors and the lessees, to do with the one
grand and fundamental objection, on which the large
Conservative minority rested—namely, that the Bill
prepared by Ministers was one for subverting the en-
tire principle of a Church establishment. How will
that, which is, to use a favourite word, the " vital"
part of the question, be affected by the report, let it be
what it may, of a Committee whose professed business
is to examine on what terms the lessees of Church
property hold their land ? They might as well deter-
mine the question of Septennial Parliaments by a Com-
mittee upon Church leases. Another absurdity in this
Whig-Radical manoeuvre, is the instituting an in-
quiry into subjects of which the mere fact of their
having months ago framed a Bill on Church-rates, and
submitted it to Parliament, supposed them to be
already complete masters, or the most arrant cheats
that ever exposed themselves to public punishment and
scorn. But the proper designation of this Committee
is not a Committee of Inquiry—it is a " pro-
crastination Committee," a " no-Government Com-
mittee," a " stop-gap" Committee—a drag upon the
march of the national business—a screen to the do-
nothingness of a sham Administration, which leaves
ttomonument or record behind it, but, locust-like, the
track of its devastations upon the yearly Budget. This
Committee is to inquire, to sit, to prolong its sittings,
to fall asleep on its chair, and, above all, not dare to
dream of reporting until the Session shall have closed,
and it has become impossible to proceed with the
Church-rate Bill before February, 1838, at. soonest.
There never was a case so manifest as this. The
Radical-ridden Ministers are afraid to meet the ex-
plosion of their own quackeries ; they tremble at the
risk of even-handling their own tools ; they are, in
reality, tied neck and heels and flung into a ditch of
their own excavating. Except that they eat and
drink, and quarter their dependents on the country,
they no more constitute the Government of England
than they do the Senate of ancient Rome. But
they murmur at our upbraidings. Their scribes
complain that the Radicals in office arc harshly
treated when we charge them with being mere marrow-
less bones of Ministers, or stuffed scarecrows, not living
functionaries of the Constitution. They say that
there are formidable obstacles in their path, that
there are difficulties which they cannot surmount, and
which ought to excuse them for not fulfilling their
sworn engagements to the country. Now, to any
dispassionate reasoner, the allegation that a given set
of men are obstructed in the performance of what
they conceive to be their duty by barriers which they
cannot pass, is an obvious argument, not for their
attempting impossibilities, but for their retiring from
a position the duties of which they find themselves
unable- to execute. If they do not relish the alter-
native of retiring,' there are other expedients which,
on their own showing, they are not only privileged,
but bound in all strictness, to resort to. For in-
stance—they assert, on one occasion, that it is im-
possible for them to carry any patriotic scheme into
action when the House of Lords places itself in fierce
opposition to their most popular measures. Very
well; what is the answer to all this? The answer is,
that there are but three modes of proceeding-Ist, to
let their grand nostrutns of reform, one and all, eva-
porate, and the business of the nation stagnate, while
they (the Ministers) swallow their salaries, and drop
from mere placemen into mere pensioners of the State.
To this we presume that, in theory at least, they will
demur, as being utterly disgraceful. 2d. They raise
an outcry against the House of Lords. Very well—
then, gentlemen, if the House of Lords be the only
obstacle between you and the performance of your
duty, you ought either to submit at once to the ascen-
dancy of the House of Lords, and cease to be your-
selves a dead incumbrance upon the State, or you
ought to deprive the Lords of their power of so defeat-
ing your utility. In the latter case, therefore, the busi-
ness of Ministers is to make open war upon the House
of Lords, either by adopting Mr. Roebuck's counsel, and
deciarinv, that the Lords, after a second exercise of their
veto, shall have no further power of legislating, the
Commons taking into their own hands exclusively the
right of making lays for England, or by a direct imita-
tion of the Long Parliament, and a vote that the House
of Lords is a nuisance We aver, -that it is the duty
of the Radical Ministers, if they act consistently with
their own premises, to come to this conclusion. Com-
plaining of the Lords as a grievous obstruction, they
are bound to ask the House of Commons to remove
that obstruction. We challenge them to do so—we
implore them to do so. Let the House of Commons
and the people of England decide whether it is the
Lords or the O'Connell Ministry who are the most
hateful nuisance. If they dare not submit to such an
ordeal, let them resign at once, or confess that they are
false and periling schemers, who are sensible of no
real grievance but that of the sacrifice of office.
Again, when they are taunted with shrinking from a
dissolution of Parliament, while the existing majority
in the House of Commons is manifestly too small to
support their revolutionary policy, what is their an-
swer ? "Oh his M----y will not suffer us to dis-
solve." Very well, then, as we said in the case of the
House of Lords, if you . justified your acceptance of
office on the score of vour carrying certain popular
measures, and that you find some stiff and impassable
obstructions in your way, the plain common eense
of the question is, that you should either resign or
annihilate the obstructions. In this instance, there-
fore, as the King is the obstruction, your duty is
either (upon your own argument, mind) to retire from
an office wilich entails responsibility without power, or
to remoee the King. We repeat, that these men have
pm themselves in a situation which compels theirs
either to a retention of office under circumstances more
disgraceful than ever brought culprit to the pillory, or
to the proposition of a vote in Parliament for the
treasonable purpose of deposing their sovereign, King
William. We challenge them to this also, as we did
to an attack on the House of Lords. We them, the
cleft stick is ready to close upon them. We have ar-
gued the question upon their own grounds. Carry
your measures, gendemen, by sweeping away the im-
pediments which oppose you, or resign your places to •
those who can govern the empire. You must abide
the consequences of your own voluntary undertaking.
You must abide the pelting of that storm, which, we
are as well satisfied as you can be, will overwhelm
you in the attempt to justify by measures your verbal
accusations of the King and Peers, or you must not
think of combining any longer the twofold character
of logs arid locusts—you must not eat largely, and do
no work.—Times.
The final decision of the House of Commons upon
the Irish Tithe Bill is looked forward to with con-
siderable anxiety. The subject has acquired a new
des,,,ree of interest, from the rumoured defection of some
of the Irish Members who have hitherto supported the
general policy of the Government. For our own part,
we do not believe that any one Liberal Irish Member
will be wanting in the discharge of his duty noon th
.e

occasion. That there is a section (if the nomber of
the party would warrant the O. ppOntioh) who arc de-
sirous of seeioe. the tote.l abolition of tithee, aii(t
consequently are dissatisfied With the Miiiisietlel
tire, know ; but we cannot imaeme that these
gentlemen would, in order to record theie opinion.
without the possibility of ',..;..eiueing any peentieel
effect, endanger the, existence of ti OUSiminent Which
has bre'.7.g.rit forweeel Measures more calculated to
0
'her eV
prove betencia to Ireland than any o, . er
presided over the destiny of e!Val; Unhappy country
Is it possible thee: these gentlemen think so lightly
of the etkekight forward and generous policy of Lord
Mulgreeve's government of Ireland ae, oppo',-,Mg the
Tithe Bill, to give such a practical proof or their indis-
position to support it ? There is not, it is well-known,
the slightest chance that the present Bill will pass
' through the House of Lords. How, then, can it be
expected that a larger measure would meet their Lord-
ship's approbation ? We would recommend these
Hon. Members not to deprive the House of Lords of
the merit of defeating a measure more hateful to
them than to the total abolitionists themselvee. The
latter, no doubt, would have the credit of breaking up
the Cabinet, should his Majesty, of which we have
considerable doubt, think it for the welfare of the
nation to receive their resignation. The Tories we
know, arc quite confident that the King is anxious
for an opportunity of freeing himself from an ob-
noxious Ministry. Vie do not participate in this
estimate of the King's sentiments. We have
sufficient confidence in the intelligence and patriotism
of the Royal mind, to suppose that he would not hazard
the consequences of such a step. We are of opinion
that the present Cabinet will not be permitted to quit
office, whether they be defeated by the injudicious con-
duct of certain Irish Members, or by the obstinate re-
sistance of a majority in the House of Lords, until an
appeal be made to the sense of the nation, through
the medium of a general election. Some of the Mem-
bers to whom we refer dare not attempt it—honour
forbids them—patriotism forbids them—their consti-
tuents forbid them. In proof of which we have only
to refer to the county of Galway, where a meeting is
convened for Thursday next, in order to present an
Address to his Majesty, expressive of their confidence
in his present advisers, and of the government of Lord
Mulgrave.—Morning Advertiser.
Lord Denman would have acted in a manner un-
worthy of his high character and his exalted judicial
station if he had hesitated to bring under the no-
tice of the House of Lords the resolutions of the
House of Commons, touching the novel and mon-
strous claim of privilege set up by that branch of the
Legislature. The resolutions of that Hovse implicate
the Lord Chief Justice in a charge of breach of pri-
vilege, which, if his accusers supposed that Learned
Judge would tamely submit to, they must have be-
lieved him to be much more deficient in moral courage
and the manly sense of self-respect than he has ever
shown himself to be. It is true the Select Committee
have added the following words to their Report, with
the view of. obtaining for the distinguished " delin-
quent" the merciful forbearance of the CoMmons :
" Your Committee feel it proper to add, that the direc-
tion of the Lord Chief Justice to the jury was pro-
nounced under circumstances which preclude all sup-
position of an intentional violation of the privi-
leges of the House." This is, no doubt, a very
kind and considerate " rider" to the act of accusa-
tion. If it be intended as an emollient to the wounded
reputation of the Chief Justice, it is one that does
not extract the sting. How gratifying it must be to
the feelings of the first Judge of the highest court of
common-law judicature in the realm to learn that he
is acquitted of any wilful and malicious violation of the
privileges of the House of Commons, and only con-
victed of gross and dangerous ignorance of that por-
tion of the lex term which constitutes the law of Par-
liament I The prudence of Lord Ellenborough in en-
deavouring to dissuade the Lord Chief Justice from
bringing this important subject under the consideration
of the House was very remarkable ; but there are cases
in which cold and calculating "prudence" is only ano-
ther name for that meanness of spirit which courts in-
justice by servilely submitting to wrong. Lord Den-
man rightly said, that " as one of his Majesty's Judges
and as a Peer of Parliament, he felt he should be de-
serting his duty if he did not bring this subject under
their Lordships' consideration." In another point of
view, and independently of the duty of self-vindication,
the Noble and Learned Lord is right in taking this
step. The public are aware that two or three
new actions have been commenced against printers of
the House of Commons in the teeth of the resolutions
of that House. Is it better, we ask, that Lord Den-
man should wait and determine the question of pri-
vilege in those cases, and thereby bring himself in per-
sonal cellision with the Commons, or that lie should
have the subject discussed and settled beforehand by
the whole Legislature ? Though Lord Denman, as
being a Peer of Parliament, could not be made to
answer at the bar of the House, for what he did as a
Judge, yet it might become the duty of a Judge who
is not a Peer of Parliament to determine the plea of
privilege. Therefore Lord Denman• was bound, as
well in consideration of his judicial brethren as in duty
to himself, to take the course which he has adopted.
In this case Lord Ellenborough may rest assured that
the really prudent line of conduct is a bold and reso-
lute one. Lord Denman has only acted with the
promptitude and decision which the occasion re-
quired, and we are quite certain that, in asserting
a great constitutional principle against the novel
and tyrannical pretensions of the House of Commcm,
he will have the sympathy and support of the country.
In another point of view the resolution which the
Chief Justice has taken to bring the question under
the consideration of the House of Lords may be shown
to be the proper one. It is a position taken by the se-
lect Committee in their report that " the privilege of
each house respectively includes the collective privi-
lege of Parliament." So far are we from denying this
proposition, that, when arguing in support of Lord
Denman's decision last February, we tookpp some pains
to show that the House of Commons could have no
privilege which did not equally belong to the other
House of Parliament ; yet, if the House of Commons
is to be sole judge of the existence mid extent of its
own privileges, it may declare that to be " privi-
lege of Parliament" which the House of Lords
denies to be such, as was the case in the proceedings•
which took place in reference to the memorable action
of " Ashby v. White," to which we have before re-
ferred. There the House of Lords not only denied
the privilege asserted by the Commene, but vindi-
cated and established the common-law right of the
subject to bring an action on the case for damages
against a returning-officer for improperly disallowing a
vote at an election. If the privilege be, indeed, as
the Select Committee assert—the collective privilege
of Parliament—why should the House of Commons
have sole and exclusive jurisdiction to decide upon it ?
The Committee themselves have furnished the strongest
reason why Lord Denman shoold, as speedily as pos-
sible, submit the question to the House of Lords. The
argument of Committee militates against its own con.
elusion. Nothing is more clear than that the decision
of one House upon a claim of collective privilege is, at
the best, but the decision of half a tribunal. Lord
Denman is right in not allowing a questiln of pri*le
lege, in which the whole Legislature nave an interest,
to be determined by a part. We may be considered
presumptuous by some for disputing the legality Of all
alleged privilege which, in Committee, had the support
of five barristers of considerable eminence, if there had
been the names of fifty it would have made no diffe-
rence with us, if they could produce no better grounds
for their decision than what their report, affords.
Three of those names we are not surprised to see
appended to such a r document—viz., Sir John
Campbell, the Attorney-General, Mr. O'Connell,
and Sergeant Wilde. None are ever more ready than
party men of extremely liberal doctrines to subvert the
great land-marks of constitutional freedom. But
confess it is with surprise and regret we observe this
report sanctioned by the names of such law-
Frederick Pollock and Sir 'William T'
Of
on such an occasion, we she e•oilett. ers
them as Sir
things—we should 1" _old have anticipated better
been the conservnci ...e expected that they would have
.
must be
aware that every errors, and
pries
eeto riot the violators, of great
pl
ot constitutional law, more especially as they
beyond properits extension of eleweefatic owes
and defined limit's tends to disturb
the tAdance of ••our tined rroverruxi(tpt, and seriously
, . g
• • •
•'

111 IE SUN, LONUON, MONDAY, JUNE 5, 1537.

endanger piiblic Not in the ,HonSe, of Corn
:non were itt the ikohitidii§
,
14 the lienunittee received the cordial ap-
proval And warm support of Mes3rs.Hnine and Wakley.
There are none like the " r liberty boys" for stretching their
own authority whenever they are n:lowed the opportunity.
haVe not forgotten th eV.traigaiit length to'.thiCh
Hunie atteinlif6il to nlOl tli j d of et OR think
cif F`h+init~'oii~ bring the Orange inquiry. That is not the
only occasion in which we have had to vindicate con-
stitutional principles against an attempted revii'al of
star-chamber j'it6cii'ext,„ o.4eiA th lawyers in the House
weft t&iit; That Sir Robert Peel should have thought
proper to give the weight of his talents and authority
to the report and resolutions, implicating Lord Den-
man in a breach of privilep,e ftlt t'ocinlitct which reflects
the higlieflt ttrdit t3ll him as a Judge, careful to pre-
save Undisturbed the land-marks of the law, and of
the people's liberties, is indeed a melancholy instance
of the infirmity of a ettnerior mind. It was but re-
cently that the smile distinguished Statesman plated
hinisTlf in a false position iii regard to the improve.
meat of the criminal law, which every friend of his
fame and admirer of his talents saw with regret: The
part which Sir It. Inglis took, as a Member of the
Committee and a Member of the House, in opposing
the resolutions in both capacities, and endeavouring to
substitute others more in accordance with precedent,
the principles of justice and the spirit of the Constitu-
tion, has entitled him to the gratitude of the country. Is
it not monstrous that while the law of libel declares
the publication of truth a crime the House of Com-
mons shall assert the right of protecting those who com-
mit crime ? Hitherto it had been generally understood
that privilege could be no protection in matters
criminal. It was considered an established maxim of
the Constitution that for indictable matters—and libel
is one—through all the gradations of treason, felony,
and breach of the peace—Parliamentary privilege
could not extend its shield over the offender. We live
in the days of new ,doctrines,.and we shall show that
to make Parliamentary privilege a protection for crime
of any sort is not the law of England.• We assert
and will maintain that if an alleged privilege cannot be
shown to be part of the lex terra, or law of the land—
either common or statute law—it can have no valid
existence. We have often shown the injustice and
absurdity of the law of libel. Perhaps when the
House of Commons feels the practical effects of its
injustice, it may be less reluctant than it has hitherto
been to take it into serious consideration with a view
to its efficient reform. To-morrow we shall take the
liberty of commenting upon some of the more pro-
minent points of the Report, and showing a few of
the fallacies, both as to references and reasoning,which
it contains.—Morning Herald.
A crisis has now arrived in the affairs of this king-
dom which demands the most earnest exertions of a
wise and energetic, a discreet and vigorous, Govern-
ment. Will the kingdom, under such circumstances,
be satisfied with such a Government as the present ?
We should think not. The mercantile credit of Great
Britain is at this moment surrounded by circumstances
of frightful apprehension, such as we have not expe-
rienced since the tremendous crash of 1825-6. They
who are engaged in extensive transactions of business

GUILDHALL.

scarcely know where they are to look for safety, or in
whom they may trust. At such a time a fearful re-
sponsibility rests upon the Government. Does the
present Government consist of men who are fitted to
acquit themselves of such responsibility with resolution
and discreetness ? Our opinion is that it does not,
and we believe this to be the opinion, the sincere •
nion, of all classes in the country. We have no
satisfaction in making this statement ; far from it.
There are times of urgent national necessity, when
all party feelings are merged in an overwhelm-
ing anxiety for the general safety. Such a time
is the present. The question at this moment is
not for the ascendancy of Tory or of Whig—of
Conservative or of Liberal. It is the safety of the
country—,the averting of general distress and dismay
—Mat is the question which now concerns us. Most
sincerely can we declare that nothing would cause us
to rejoice so heartily as a conviction that the present
Government was competent to grapple with present
difficulties, and to take the lead in doing what present
circumstances render politic. Most assuredly we
should not, for the sake of any possible party triumph,
press hard upon Ministers at such a time, if we
thought them capable of managing those affairs which
have nothing at all to do with disputed questions of
party politics. If we thought there were heads and
hearts capacity and resolution—in the present Ca-
binet to deal with so important and so urgent an affair
as the upheaving and breaking in pieces of the
of the mighty fabric of British commercial credit, we
should gladly propose a truce in all party disputes,
that undivided and undisturbed attention might be
given to the affairs which so seriously demand that at-
tention. But we do not think that this Goverment is
at all competent to deal with the present state of
affairs in the commercial world—we do not believe that
it possesses the extensive knowledge, the deliberate
courage, or the lofty character, which are requisite for the
guidance of the country under its present circumstances.
It is scarcely possible to imagine anything more
unbecoming, or more unsatisfactory, than the reply of
Lord John Russell on Friday evening to the observa-
tions of Sir George Sinclair relative to the state of af-
fairs in the commercial world, and the propriety of the
Gove:n rent a id th.! House of Commons taking them
into consideration. It may have been that these ob-
servations were not quite regularly introduced, but who
is to be restrained by miserable technical.t:e ; when the
substance of most vital affairs is pressing upon his
mind ? Does Lord John Russell suppose that if the
House were on fire no Member should say anything
about it unless he had given formal notice ? It is not
less absurd to make this kind of objection to the man-
tion of such circumstances as those to which Sir
George Sinclair called the attention of the House.
The paltry petulance of feeble irritability is worse than
disgusting when we know, and all the world knows,
that the matters pressed upon the attention of the
House were serious realities. A very different tone
would have much better become the Minister of the
Crown. If he had no satisfactory assurance to give
he might have at least-manifested a decent concern re-
specting affairs which so deeply and so reasonably en-
gage the attention of the whole kingdom, and fill the
minds of the commercial classes with such intense
anxiety. It would have been satisfactory to learn that
Government was seriously addressing itself to the state
of affairs. It would have been a
.proper respect to
the representatives of a commercial people to have
given them some assurance of the sympathy of Gee
vernment with their anxiety, and the exertions of Go-
vernment for their relief. But no such thing was to
be gathered from the speech of Lord John Russel.
On the contrary, the petty exasperation which he dis-
played showed that his mind was not at all occupied
with the grave totrcerris which, ought to occupy the
mind of a Minister at such a time. The mere party
malignity of a spiteful mind, incapable d occupying
itself with great practical concerns, was all that
the speech of the Minister conveyed to the House
of Commons.
can commit, bult!tleespegc7a4llty"al IsSotialYtes7nha which
is to yo
shutroan
his eyes upon or to neglect, actual, existing, unde.
ttiable facts. He filly affect] like a fool, not to
see them, but he must feel them;,.
doesandif
ourlle
be not a charlatan or a ninny he will look at them
steadily, and act accordingly. Now, what
Minister do ? Facts are stated to him by Sir George
Sinclair which he does not dare to deny because they
are noteriously true,
and which he deepot
ad-
mit because he has not the spirit or the intelligence to
ti dare to
deal with them as he ought. " From all I can learn,"
said Sir George Sinclair, " there never was a period in
the history of this country when embarrassment, dis-
content, and a dread of impending consequences more
universally prevailed among all classes. I am con-
vinced it will be necessary for the Legislature to inter-
fere. There are many merchants possessed of large
assortments of goods on hand who are quite unable to
dispose of them, in order to meet demands upon their
houses. We hear every day of great failures taking place,
and houses of the highest respectability being obliged i
to stop payment. I ask whether its consistent with
justice to those individuals that these subjects should
satisfaction should be allowed to prevail ? Can any
never be spoken of in this House, but„ that dis-
if they cannot be denied will any reasonable man ques..
one deny the facts stated by the Hon. Baronet ; and

tion his itiference;, that such facts ought to receive the
attention 01' the Goiiefritheiii and the House of Coin
mons ? Yet what does the Minister sdy ? Does he
acquaint the House that the Government has had these
subjects unch)r c(iv;iof:Ta!ion, and that he shall be glad
\ae.n. an opportunity arrives to have the s,q!iimeuts of
the HoileFelei_itind thein 140 sii-2.1-1 klucl:
nai duly the laebt Slated, Hi' id tid Sd htit
he eXpresSes• his anger that they should have heeli
notice4=he hints that they have been noticed
fdi the purpose of cHcitirig. aisting
alarm being the very cause and foundation of the
speech to which the Minister was replying) ; and he
thinks that *hen such a dicussion was not to be
eveeted ofithiii4 of the liitid should have been men-
tioned I Feekreness and folly can hardly go heyoud
this yet this is all the riOtiec which the leading Mi-
nister in the noose of coffin-kw, ran afford to the
present embarrassed circumstances of the merciiritile
world. Were the matter in question some scheme of
Mr. O'Connell for the overthrow of the Protestant
Monarchy in Ireland, the Minister would not venture
to object to its notice or discussion at any moment that
his Irish master might bring it forward ; but the in-
terests of British commerce must not pretend to cope
with those of the Irish Radical party. The latter
affects immediately the existence of the Minister's
place—the former will affect it too, but more re-
motely, and in the meantime some favourable chance
may turn up to alter the complexion of affairs. To
that chance, therefore, the commercial interests of
Great Britain are left.-111orning Post.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.

On Saturday Henry Baylis and Alfred Baylis, two
brothers, carpenters, were ceatged with stealing a quan-
tity of wine from their employer, Mr. Warman.
The prisoners, who denied the charge, were committed
for trial.