The Sun.
London, England, 1839-02-23 00:00:00

tish flag," and received the same explanation from Mr.
WOOD as was given to Lord MINTO in the other

House.
The Bill for improving the prisons of Scotland, which
are notorious for their imperfections, was read a second
time, after some of the Scotch Tories had complained
of the expense to which it would subject the counties.
On the motion of Mr. HAWES for the House to go
into a Committee on the Affirmations Bill, a Bill which
allows persons who have a conscientious scruple
against taking an oath to depose on affirmation,
Mr. GOULBURN, on the ground that the Bill was trifling
with the solemn sanction of an oath, moved that it
should be committed that day six months. A consider
able debate ensued, which was characterized by more
quiet reasoning, than is usual in the House of Commons.
We cannot say that it was not disfigured by party-
spirit, for it was a pure question of reason, and yet we
find Mr. GOULBURN, Sir ROBERT INGLIS', Mr. Re-
corder LAW, Mr. Recorder SIIAw, Sir ROBERT PEEL,
etc. on one side, and Dr. LUSIIINGTON, Mr. O'CON-
NELL, LOMMORPETH, the SOLICITOR-GENERAL, etc. on
the other, proving that it. was debated from party motives
and in a party manner. One exception, indeed, there
was—Mr. (iinsoN stood out from amongst his brother
Tories, and made an excellent speech in favour of the
Bill. It will be noticed by those who are curious
on such matters, that the Churchmen who rely
on oaths for the protection of the Church, oaths not
being wanted for the protection of anything useful, and
who are eager to enforce them for her security, all op-
posed the Bill, and opposed it partly because it would be
dangerous to her. Again we find the Church and its
friends barring the way to improvement and insisting on
preserving a superstitious power over the mind for her
behoof. The source of moral obligation in an oath,
and what makes it binding on the conscience of man,
was slightly touched on by Mr. O'CONNELL ;
and when that part of moral philosophy, or
phsychology, shall have been properly - investigated,
our legislators will be as desirous of getting rid of oaths
as they now are of retaining them. Dr. LUSHINGTON'S,
Mr. O'CONNELL'S, Mr. GIBSON'S, and Sir R. PEEL'S
speeches should be read in extenso. The Tories in the
end prevailed, and Mr. GOULBURN'S amendment was
carried by U 5 to 93. This was not a Ministerial
question, but nevertheless we cannot help looking at
the division as an indication that the Tories have gained
several votes ; and the majority, on important party
questions, will be doubtful. The division cowsluded
the business of the evening.

We can congratulate our numerous Naval Cor
respondents, anti, in particular, our zealous friend,
Captain NAPIER—and we may venture to congra-
tulate ourselves—that their and our continued exer-

sons to bring the state of the Navy under the
while notice, have not been unsuccessful. At

length that great question, which ought never to
have been made a vehicle for party calu!.nv or
party triumph, seems in a fair way to be fairly, im-
partially, and, we wish we could add, boldly consi-
dered. The subject was last night brought before
tl►e House of Lords by Lord COLCHESTER,
in a temperate and able speech. His Lord-
ship dv.elt much on the inefficiency of the
Navy for the protection of our own coasts,
and referred, with impressive effect, to the
letter which Captain NAPIER addressed, through
our columns, to Lord PALMERSTON. Lord
COLCHESTER also stated the danger to which
our commerce and our revenue would be exposed

by any temporary blockade of the coast as a strong
reason for keeping ships at home, " to guard our

native seas :'