The Sun.
London, England, 1838-02-13 00:00:00

Parliament, which is the other part of the
system of changes from which Lord JOHN RUSSELL is
averse, would seem likely to have few or no evils con-
nected with it, were the Ballot granted. Then we
may suppose that the Members, being elected from a
respect for principle, and not from a regard to interest
or influence, would only be changed at another elec-
tion, if they had acted unworthily of their character
and professions. Of course with the Ballot all elec-
tions would be tranquil, and the objection to repeating
them frequently, on the score of causing public dis-
turbance, would cease to exist.

Lord BROUGHAM'S vigilance detected last night a
legislative blunder committed by the House of Com-
mons in passing a Bill to provide a remedy for an evil
which has no existence. The Bill in question pro-
fesses to confer upon the Presbyterians of Ireland the
privilege of making oath by holding up the hand, as is
done in Scotland, instead of kissing the Gospels, ac-
cording to the custom of the English courts.
Lord BROUGHAM protested against it as giving
countenance to the mischievous doctrine that the law
of oaths is different in different parts of the kingdom,
whereas it is precisely the same. The law, he said,
knew no difference, in the matter of oaths, between a
Presbyterian in Scotland, and one in England or Ire-
land ; and cited instances in which, even in cases of
capital crimes, Presbyterians had taken the oath in
English Courts by holding up the hand. That any
doubt should have arisen on a point so clear was
owing to a foolish Act passed by the Irish Parliament
in 1781, which, under the pretext of giving relief to
Seceders (dissenters from Presbyterianism as an esta-
blished system, but holding its doctrines and form of
Chureh Government), actually abridged their existing
privileges. It generously granted them the right which
they possessed before of being sworn in civil cases by
holding up the hand, but excluded them from being
witnesses in criminal cases, unless they took the oath
in the usual way. The Noble and Learned Lord's
objections were replied to, but not answered by the
Marquis of LANSDOWNE, who consented, at Lord
BROUGHAM'S suggestion, to leave the Bill in statu
quo until Lord PLUNKETT'S arrival in London.

In the House of Commons last night, Mr.
WAKLEY, on presenting petitions from the Working
Men's Associations of London, Leeds, Edinburgh,
Dalkeith, and Cumloch, praying for a mitigation of
the sentence of transportation pronounced against the
Glasgow Cotton-spinners, took occasion to represent,
as a breach of privilege, the omission in the Morning
Chronicle of Saturday last, of all reference to a number
of petitions on the same subject, presented by him on
Friday, while those of an opposite tendency, presented
by Mr. O'CONNELL, were carefully enumerated.
Had the Honourable Member for Finsbury stopped.
here, it would only have been necessary for us to ob-
serve, that we are morally certain the omission com-
plained of was purely and entirely accidental on the
part of the reporters of our 31orning Contemporary.
We are persuaded, from as much experience as many
Members of Parliament can boast of, that there is no
body of men in the kingdom who suffer their political
feelings to bias them in the discharge of their
regular functions so little as the Parliamentary re-
porters on the London press. Whatever may be their
personal opinions—and the great bulk of them being
men of intelligence and ability, must be presumed to
entertain strong political convictions—we have rarely
known an instance in which they did not exert them-
selves to do ample justice to public men of all parties.
Besides, we do not believe that there is a daily Journal
in London—Morning or Evening—that would know-
ingly suffer its reporters to exercise so large a dis-
ci etion as that of omitting all reference to the
petitions presented on any subject by any
Member of the two Houses of Parliament.
We are here vindicating our Contemporaries
from a charge which we believe to be utterly ground-
less, as far as regards a predetermination on the part
of the reporters not to deal impartially with Mr.
WAKLEY. For ourgelves, we are not at all impli-
cated in any thing that fell from the Hon. Gentleman,
as The Sun of Friday night carefully reported the
whole of the observations omitted in the Chronicle of
Saturday.
But Mr. WAKLEY did not confine himself to
bringing the omission in our Morning Contemporary
before the House—he characterised it as a breach of
privilege, and threatened that, in the event of its re-
currence, he would move the Standing Order for the
exclusion of strangers. Now, it must be clear to
Mr. WAKLEY, that while the reporting the speeches
delivered in Parliament continues to involve a
breach of privilege, there can be no breach of
privilege in omitting to report any thing said
within sight of the SPEA KE R'S mace. To
misreport, or even to report correctly, what the Hon.
Member for Finsbury may say in his place in the
House of Commons, may, in Parliamentary phraseo-
logy, be denounced as a breach of privilege, but no-
thing can be more illogical than to contend, in the
teeth of his own threat, that profound silence can, in
any case, be wrested into a breach of privilege. The
threat itself was not only unnecessary, hut it was un-
gracious, inasmuch as our Contemporary states that
no inquiry was instituted to ascertain whether or not
the omission was wilful. But even were the
omission wilful—which we contend was not, and
never is the case under such circumstances—
Mr. WA K LEY'S threat of closing the doors only
aggravates the evil. The proper remedy is to
authorise the reporting of the debates, and let
them come before the public with the full sanction of
Parliament. This would make the reporters, and the
press generally, responsible to the House for the fide-
lity and impartiality with which its proceedings would
be represented to the country—instead of, as now, as-
serting its privileges at the expense of its own and the
public convenience.

The petition presented last evening by Mr. CLAY
on behalf of the family of the late Sir JOHN SOANE,
we trust will not be without effect. A man in these
times cannot, and ought not to be allowed, to do what
he likes with his own. By the New Poor-law a
father is compelled to provide for the support of his
son in case of want, and has not the right to devise
his property to strangers, or to leave it to be expended
in carrying into effect some whimsical project, while
his children and grandchildren may want the neces-
saries of life. Mr. CLAY stated that the family of
the deceased was almost in a state of destitution, while a
very considerable sum was yearly expended in keeping
up the Museum in Lincoln's-Inn-Fields, which hardly
any person visits, and which would be much more ac-
cessible to the public if it were transferred to the Bri-
tish Museum. There was but one opinion of the Act
of 1833, founded on the capricious and harsh will of the
testator, and we believe every one would be glad to see
it altered in such way that some provision might be
made for his descendants, and the objects of art be
better preserved than they can be by the existing ar-
rangement.

A fourth Letter on the Irish Poor-law Bill, from
Mr. SHARMAN CRAWFORD, will be found in our
columns of this day. We recommend it to the notice
of those Members of the House of Commons who
take an interest in ascertaining the views of a nume-
rous proportion of the people.-of Ireland upon this most
important measure. It will be seen from our Parlia-
mentary report that the House went into Committee
upon the Bill last night, when considerable progress
was made, to the satisfaction of a majority of the Irish
Members.

The case of the Edinburgh and Glasgow Railway,
as furnished to us by our Parliamentary Agent, is a
striking illustration of the enormous injustice and ex-
tensive mischief of the new Standing Orders. The
decision of yesterday will carry conviction to millions,
that the great principles of British law are unknown.to,
or rejected by, the British House of Commons. Not-
withstanding the important matter that crowds our
columns, we cannot forbear calling the attention of our
readers to this subject more at length. Sixty millions
of money are now we believe connected with Railways,
and hundreds of thousands of individuals—acid tothese
the vast increase of trade and commerce, which, it has