The Sun.
London, England, 1838-03-29 00:00:00

in/ Tr _ 4,‘

WITH WHICH
a THE TRUE SUN" IS NOW

INCORPORATED.

LONDON :
THURSDAY EVENING, MARCH 29, 1838.

The division on Lord ELIOT'S motion last night was
equally unexpected and proper. We can sympathize with
Lord JOHN RUSSELL and Lord PALMERSTON, who mutt

have desired to defend the Ministers from the idle charges
of the Tories ; but we cannot admit that the public time is
to be wasted even by their vindication. The House of
Commons is perhaps to blame for entertaining such a mo-
tion at all, after the affairs of Spain have been so repeat-
edly discussed ; but it was quite right to cut the matter
short when it had the opportunity. As to the Tories, we
scarcely know in what terms to speak of them, who com-
menced the debate—refused to carry it on—called for a
division because the unpractised eye of a new leader
assured him :that his friends were in a majority—and
when they are defeated, railed at their opponents. The
Tory Member, who was by agreement with Sir ROBERT
PEEL to have commenced the debate, is said by the
Chronicle to have been in the House before the division ;
and it is hinted that In left it in order to give his friends an
easy victory, without inflicting on them the pain of his
speech. Sir ROBERT PEEL was anxious to escape that,
for he did not enter the House for half an hour after
his friend was to have commenced, and when it might be
supposed he was about to finish. The gentleman who
entered into this agreement with Sir ROBERT PEEL is not
precisely known, the honour being disputed by those two
hopeful aspirants to Tnry fame, Sir CHARLES DOUGLAS
and Mr. MILNES ; but we are inclined to believe that the
former was the man. He will learn by the result the ne-
cessity of punctuality, and the value of Sir ROBERT'S
comnliments.

'Whig, Tory, and Radical—everyone, indeed, whom
we have heard mention the subject, condemn, not as
irregular, but as the height of absurdity, the attempt of the
Tories to renew a debate on a motion which had been de-
liberately disposed of by a House consisting of 1:36 Mem-
bers. There was no error in putting the question. The
motion was deliberately read by the SPEAKER, who de-
clared that the " Noes" had it ; upon which an ex-Chan-
cellor of the Exchequer, one of Sir ROBERT PEEL'S
former colleagues, (particularly Sir EDWARD SC GDEN)
exclaimed, the " Ayes " have it, and thereby chal-
lenged a division. Sir ROBERT PEEL however, who
come down armed with authorities on the law of
nations, and fully prepared with a long speech to de-
molish the foreign policy of the Whigs, could not believe
his senses, and wished in the face of all precedent, and in
contradiction to common sense, that notwithstanding the
decision of the House, the debate should he renewed.
We believe no debating society—no vestry—no pot-house
club even, would have listened for a moment to such a mode
of proceeding. In such assemblies a division settles the
question for the time. Not so in the House of Commons, for
at least twenty Members argued the point whether a division
was worth anything, and but for Mr. BERN AL pointing out the !
mischief which would inevitably ensue, in all probability Sir.l
ROBERT PEEL would have been heard. That alone was
wanting to complete the climax, and the House of Corn- I
mons might then be quoted as an authority in every meet-
ing for such a preposterous proceeding. There is one cir-
cumstance, however, at which all Reformers will rejoice.
This scene took place in a Reformed House of Commons,
but it was got up by the party who ever opposed Parlia- !
mentary Reform—by men who would have sat there I
under the old rotten.borough system, whose—par- I
tizans have ever been anxious to throw discredit on
a Reformed House, and to laud to the skies the regularity
and good order which prevailed when Old Sarum returned
her two Members, and the rabble of Birmingham, and
Manchester, and the Tower Hamlets, were excluded from
any share in the choice of Members of Parliament.
The blame of not carrying forward the discussion is wholly
due to the Tories ; and the discreet impatience of the House,
which would not allow the public time to be further wasted,
is most creditable. The Herald, which of late has taken a
most warlike tone towards the Tories, hoarsely screaming
against Sir ROBERT PEEL, says that it cannot " compli-
ment the Cuns2.rvatives on their conduct." We agree with
the Herald in most of its recent remarks on its old friends,
and sincerely advise it to continue its censures of Sir RoaEnT
PEE r. and the half-and-ha'f Tories.

We fear t sere is little thane of success for the motion
which is to be made to. night in the House of Commons by
Sir GEORGE STRICKLAND, on the subject of Negro Ap-
prenticeship. It is.quitc clear, from the speech of Lord
MELBOURNE to the Delegates who waited upon his Lord-
ship yesterday with a memorial, setting forth the reasons
which required the immediate termination of the appren-
ticeship system, that the Government have made up their
minds not to adopt the course recommende.l by the Dele-
gates, by the voice of the country, and, we may adds 'by
sound policy. We are far from accusing the Government
of indifference to the sufferings of the Negro population.
The authors of the Abolition Act cannot be even suspected
of not feeling the deepest interest in the welfare of the ap-
prentices ; hut we are deeply grieved to find that after the tel
experience which they have had of the utter inadequacy
of legislation to protect the Negro from the oppression of
his master, they should still cling to legislative enactments
as an effeetual remedy against a tyranny which is so inwoven
in the texture of the accursed system—by what name
moor it may b 3 cal!ed—that no human power can eradi-
*ate it, except by annihilating the system itself. We
have perused the Ministerial Bill which passed the Lords
and has been read a first time in the Commons, and
we have TlO hesitation in saying that, could we put
faith in the efficacy of any Act of Parliament to secure
the humane treatment of the black population, by those
who have hit'aerto set at defiance all laws, both divine and
human, 'we should have little or no fault to find with the
Bill. Without going into particulars at present, we may
observe that it provides against the recurrence of those
abuses and atrocities, the disclosure of which has of
late 30 shocked the public mind. But our belief is, that
until the Ethiopian change his skin, the oppressor will not
cease to oppress, as long as he retains any authority over
his victim.

We would also call the attention of Ministers to the
affects likely to be produced, should they persist in apply-
ing a palliative to the great evil which demands an efficient
remedy. Will the country acquiesce in their measure ?
We are decidedly of opinion, that it will not, and that a
degree of agitation, such as has seldom if ever been sur-
passed will follow the refusal, on the part of the House of
Commons, of that which is now universally considered as a
mere set of justice—and perhaps of tardy justice—to the
much injured Negro race. If we wanted any corroboration
of this opinion, we find it in the resolutions—particularly