The Sun.
London, England, 1836-05-10 00:00:00

PUBLIC PETITIONS.

The last Report gives asthe number of petitions pre-
sented to the House of Commons against Church Rates. They
are signed by upwards of three thousand persons.
For the Newspaper Stamp abolition 193 petitions, with
163,799 signatures have been recently presented.
The Agricultural Distress Petitions aro signed by 24,970
persons.

For the reguiation of Hand-loom Weavers' Wages there
are lying on the table 13 petitions, signed by 15,012.
On the " Lords' Day" affair, although 14 petitions have
been got up, the signatures to most of them are under 50, and
they do not average more than 130 names per petition.

MLLE. GRISI.—This admirable songstress has
stipulated before marrying that she is not to quit the
stage. It appears that the affair was settled during
the last Parisian season ; but the secret was so closely kept,
that not even the most intimate friends of Mdlle. Grisi were
acquainted with her situation. M. Auguste Gerard de Melcy,
her husband, is a young Frenchman, of the age of 28. He is
of good family, and enjoys during the lifetime of his mother
an income of 20,000 francs (800/.) At the conclusion of the
London season, Mdlle Grisi will retire with her husband to
the handsome chateau of Vaucresson, which she has recently
purchased from Count Coutard.—Messager (Paris paper).
ANCIENT OATHS.—AII nations have adopted
oaths : the Hebrews by putting their hand below the thigh of.
the person to whom they swore ; the Pagans by taking hold
of the altar, and both holding up their hands to heaven ; in
which last they have been followed by the most Christian
nations.

The fate of the doomed seems to impend over the
House of Lords. Their Lordships are evidently de-
termined not to disappoint their enemies by the per-
formance of a prudent, beneficial act. To thwart the
King's Ministers—to take upon themselves the duties
that of right devolve upon the responsible advisers of
the Crown—to insult the Lower House of Parliament,
and to exasperate the people of these countries—this it
would appear is the sole object and use of the House
of Peers, as at present constituted. Should the in-
jured nation, harassed by a continuous system of vexa-
tious and galling annoyance, at length be forced into
re-action, surely the Peek themselves must admit that
to their own pertinacious opposition to popular mea-
sures, any attack that may be made upon their heredi-
tary privilege will be referable. If at any period, re-
mote or near, an
.abolition of the Hereditary Chamber
of Legislation shall be demanded by the people of the
United Empire, the demand will spring from the overt
wrongs which that House is, unhappily, committing. Do
not its Members perceive the suicidal tendency of
their proceedings ? Are they so idiotic as not to under-
stand the beat of the public pulse ? Has that gro-
velling sensuality of which the most unprincipled of,
their own organs accused them, really so devoured all
sense of right within them, so reduced them_ to the
level of Abut- herd in which the unclean spirit took
shelter, that they are in-Capabk of comprehending the
natural, the necessary effects of those great organic
changes, which have been within a few years wrought
in the polity of this country ? Assuming that their
Lordships possess even a grain of common sense, we
give them credit for so much knowledge of human
nature as tells us that there is a stage beyond which
forbearance under injury and insult cannot be ex-
pected ; and the history of their country will inform
them, that when the limit is passed within which
submission is a virtue, resistance then becomes a
duty. It cannot be the wish of the Tory Peers to
drive the country to this extremity. That brute in-
stinct which urges to self-preservation, must impress
upon their. souls the conviction that against roused
and serried millions they could not stand. 'Wherefore,
then, this insane course they are pursuing ?—a course
that leads to convulsion, and which, if persisted in, can-
not end otherwise than in their own destruction. They
recklessly abolish all the corporations in Ireland—bo-
dies whose existence rests upon the same foundation as
that upon which the patrician order is based. Can
they complain if, at any future period, their own House
should be swept away ? Having set the destructive
precedent, mankind would but laugh at their wailing, if
society-were to apply its principle to its authors. We
warn their Lordships of the precipice to which they are
hurrying, and we tell them again they shall not succeed
in this flagitious crusade against the rights of eight
millions of our fellow-subjects, and against the prin-
ciple of civil and religious freedom. To destroy those
rights, to injure that principle, is the design of those
nefarious changes--we will not prostitute words byti
calling them " amendments"—which Lord Lyndhurst
has made in the Bill for the reformation of the
municipal system in Ireland ; and in this perni-
cious purpose the nation, by a perusal of the debate
of last night, will learn with regret, though not with
surprise, that that Noble and Learned Individual has
met with the cordial support of one hundred and seven
Peers, in a House composed of 160 Members. Tlie,
division which thus resulted was taken upon the se-
cond clause of the pseudo-amended Bill, which in-
volves the gist of the question in issue between the
country and the Tory Peers. If this clause were as-
sented to by Ministers, the whole Bill might, without
further trouble or delay, be shouted into a law, so far as
the I lereditary Chamber was concerned. Accordingly,
the Prime Minister resisted the proposition, and to his
speech we refer the reader with much satisfaction.
It is consistent, firm, and statesmanlike. The Noble
Viscount, in a few sentences, demolished the
spurious reasoning by which the iniquitous at-
tempt to defraud the people of Ireland of their cor-
porate privileges has been justified by the de-
structive corruptionists. One of these precious
reasons—indeed the chief reason why the Tories
abolish rather than reform the Irish Corporations—is,
according to themselves, the prevalence of factious
feuds in that country. Without jogging their Lord-
ships' memories as to the causes of these dissensions,
willing, perhaps, to spare them the harrowing remi-
niscence, Lord Melbourne, in his own cool fashion,
laid bare the impudent knavery of this pretence, by
which the Tories think to gloss over the wicked-
ness of their. real motive and ill-concealed design.
Ireland is distracted, exclaim the hypocritical au-
thors of the distraction ; and if the feud be fed by
the ailment supplied by the Corporate Reform Bill,
the country will be plunged into anarchy and civil
war ! This language was used by the Tory Peers
in the first debate. Can anything be happier
than the -reply of the First Lord of the Treasury ?

" The Noble and Learned Lord told your Lordships'
that the effect of appointitig such bodies would be perpe-
tual discontent, political excitement, and violeut agitation,
which must terminate in civil war. I know not how it is,
but the argument deduced for the. dangers of civil war is
found on many occasions extremely convenient ; and
whenever a change is to be effected in a man's political con-
duct, and when he *is to depart from the course of policy
which he has adhered to through the whole tenor qf his life,
then it is that the dangers of a civil war come most oppor-
tunely to his aid, and relieve him from his embarrassing dif-
ficulties.—(Hear, and a laugh)."
Did the Duke of Wellington join in this cachin-
nation, in which it appears the House indulged ?
Will Sir Robert Peel laugh when he reads the
passage ? In 1829 these statesmen flung off
the trammels of party, deserted the colours
they bore through the previous political life,
and conceded the long-denied claims of the Ca-
tholics of Ireland, through an apprehension of
civil war. And in 1836 these self-same Statesmen
refuse a measure of corporate reform to the same coun-
try, hst, forsooth, the opening practically to Catho-
lics those portals which they have had the legal right
of entering since 93, might lead to civil war. A con-
venient cloak for political perfidy this civil War is, ve-
rily ! Doubtless the country will be as much blind-
folded by it as was the Prime Minister. But the ma-
jority of the House of Lords seem to have been
frightcd from their propriety, by the phantom which the
artful wizard who sways their judgment conjured up
—and though the argument was with Lord Mel-
bourne, the majority of votes was in favour of the
Ex-
chancellor. It is resolved by the House of
Peers, that Ireland shall not participate in the be-
nefits of municipal government, enjoyed by the sister
countries of Scotland, England, and Wales.. Not even
to Dublin, Cork, Waterford, and the few other cities
and large towns to which the Duke of Richmond--
whose conduct on the occasion merits the gratitude of
Ireland, and the thanks or the Reformers of Great.
Britain—proposed to preserve municipalities in a re-
formed shape, would the obstinate bigotry of the Tory
Lords concede this boon. The very capital of Ire-
land is refused by these hereditary kgislators a parti-
cipation in privileges enjoyed by some of the least im-
portant towns in England. What was the pitiful pre-
text for thus insulting and injuring the inhabitants of
the Irish metropolis ? Indeed, there would be agita-
tion, the priests would be made more powerful, and Ca-
tholic domination would be established upon the ruins
of Protestant ascendancy ! Never was atrocious wrong
based upon so despicable a pretence. As was well ob-
served by the Marquis of Conyngham,
"this outrage-
ous vote of the House of Lords will create more agita-
tion in one month, and infuse into that agitation more
bitterness, than would exist for half a century, had
the Tory Peers but the decency to meet in the spirit
which ought to animate a branch of the imperial le-
gislature, the moderate, and conciliatory proposition
of the Duke of Richmond." As to the argument

•
hich the original
if pa; in its ent—ip. woulci)give to these so
...eaded Priests, that is sheerkSksiyAtEs•—and they wh
insulted common sense by usiit jsrlre well aware of
the fact.• The Priests have littke-or no political influ-
ence in the cities and large towns., They know this—
and consequently avoid interference in the political
conflicts of these places. To the rural districts their
power is confined—for here the rapacity of landlords
and of the parsons, and the tyrannies of the unpaid
Magistracy,• as well as the misrule of former Go-
vernments, have made the Catholic clergy almost
omnipotent. In the towns, however, a different
state of things exists—and different circum-
stances have engendered different feelings. Had,
therefore, corporations been preserved to the towns,
particularly those of greater extent, elections would
take place, and business would be transacted, without
the aid, interference, or • controul of the Catholic
priesthood. And with respect to the objection
against establishing a Catholic ascendancy, that is
crushed by facts and by the provisions of the original
Bill. The Protestant inhabitants in the capital and
in the other large towns named in Schedule A, are
both numerous and wealthy ; and to numbers and
property their due influence was guaranteed by the
Ministerial measure. But we find we are arguing the
case, forgetting that we have to do with Tory Lords
and unprincipled charlatans. Upon this herd reason-
ilia is lost. Passion and prejudice are their guides,
andr' these must be met by that only effective argil.
ment—the bold remonstrance of an indignant people.
—Morning Chronicle.

We rejoice to see the House of Lords pursue the
wise and manly course of dealing with the Legislative
questions which are brought before them with reference
exclusively to what, in the conscientious opinion or
their Lordships, justice and the general welfare of the
State demand. It is deMonstrable, even from the fu-
tile arguments advanced last night by the minority of
their Lordships' House, that it is upon these princi-
ples, and upon these principles only, the Peers arc now
proceeding,spon the subject of the Irish Corporations
Bill. The Ministerial Peers repeat one after another,
with tiresome uniformity, the cuckoo cry, " Treat
Ireland and Great Britain with equal justice," adding,
as if it were a proposition identical with the foregoing,
" Give the same kind of Corporations to Ireland that
you have given to Great Britain." Now these propo-
sitions or demands, it is needless to say, are not iden-
tical. Equal justice is done to Ireland and to Great
Britain when the Legislature enacts such melt•
sures for each division of the Empire as, keeping
always in view the condition, circumstances, and cha-
racter of each, seem best calculated to promote at once
its particular welfare and the general welfare of the
whole state. If their circumstances, character and con-
dition be different, it would not be equal justice, but
manifest and gross injustice to impose the same sys-
tem of municipal government upon all. But,in the
case of Ireland and Great Britain, the existence of es- '
sential differences of social character and circumstances
is fully admitted even by those who clamour for precise-
similarity of legislation. The kind of reasoning em-
ployed upon this occasion is calculated indeed, to
to prove nothing, unless it be that those who re-
sort to it are utterly destitute either of political sagacity
or of personal candour. There is a fallacy equally gla-
ring in the pretence that the Bill, as amended, in pur-
suance of the instructions moved by Lord Fitzgerald,
abolishes the corporations of Ireland, and alienates their
property. This fallacy was well exposed by several
Noble Peers, and especially by Lord Lyndhurst. If
Corporations are abolished and property alienated, it
is not by the amended, but by the original, Bill. The
work of abolition and of alienation is the work of Mr.
O'Loghlin and the Ministers of the Crown, not -that
of Lord Fitzgerald and the Peers who support and
carry into effect his resolutions. The Ministerial' mea-
sure destroys the existing Corporations. It would go
further, and transfer theittroperty and rights to new
Corporations, of its own creation, composed of a wholly .
different class of persons, but embodying and exagge-
rating all the vices while they would inherit none of
the merits of the old Corporations. This latter part
of the Ministerial scheme the House of Lords
rightfully and wisely reject. They say, " You have
passed a sentence of condemnation upon the existing
'Corporations, from the consequences of which we will
not attempt to rescue them. But we foresee that
the Corporations you wish to erect in their place
would be more vicious, corrupt, and mischievous than
you have described the old ones to be ; and we are of
opinion, moreover, that such Corporations cannot be
established in Ireland as are likely to prove beneficial
and efficient organs of local government. Therefore
we will not permit an experiment which we consider
hopeless and dangerous. We shall apply to the go-
vernment of the towns of Ireland those- general and
original principles of the British Constitution, under
the operation of which, unaided and unobstructed by
Corporations, many of the most flourishing towns
of Great Britain are and have always been governed
to the satisfaction and advantage of their inhabi-
tants." This would be irresistible argument if
this were all. But the House of Lords is convinced,
as every man who knows anything of the state of
Ireland must also be, that the new Corporations
would be a pest and a disgrace to the country ;
would speedily become mere instruments in the hands
of the Roman Catholic Priesthood, to foment hatred,
and array aggressive hostility against the Protestant
Church ; or if any effort should be made by the Pro-
testant population to impart to them a character less
pernicious, that this effort could only supply new and
constant occasion for strife and animosity to the diffe-
rent classes of the Irish people. The House of Lords
arc earning for themselves an imperishable title to the
gratitude of the whole United Kingdom ; and of all
parts of the United Kingdom, that which ought to
entertain the most lively sense of their invaluable ser-
vices is unquestionably Ireland. Morning Post.
.VVe sincerely congratulate the friends of humanity
on the division of last night in the House of Com-
mons, on Mr. P. Thomson's new Factory Bill. The
second reading was carried in a House of 354 Mem-
bers by a majority of only two, although several Mein-
hers (including Sir R. Peel) voted in favour of the
motion, in the hope that the measure might be so
amended in Committee as merely to remedy some ad-
mitted imperfections in the Act of 1833. There is
now, we hope, no fear that the clauses will be adopted
which would exact from children a degree of labour
beyond their strength and age, and thus inflict un-
natural decrepitude at once upon their bodies and
their minds. But the worshippers of gain are dexte-
rous, so it behoves the friends of humanity to be vigi-
lant.—Morning Post.
Mr. Robinson brought forward a very important
question on Thursday night—on the subject of the
repeal of the duty on marine insurances. The Chan-
cellor of the Exchequer has certainly sufficient on his
hands at present as far as the repeal of stamp duties
are concerned, and it is not our wish, therefore, to
play a card into the hands of the Conservatives, by
complicating his position, and by making too many
demands on his financial liberality at the same time.
We believe, however, that Mr. Spring Rice is person-
ally much disposed to do what he can towards the ab-
rogation of a duty which—without contributing greatly
to the revenue, is stamped by all the self-de-
feeting absurdities of the old anti-free trade system
—and is, moreover, 6
as we ful!), believe, producino-
a great amount of commercial mischief. One
should suspect, as we suggested with regard to the
timber duties, that some philosopher from Swift's
celebrated Island of Laputa had been especially de-
puted to invent the exquisite specimens of blundering
legislation involved in the duty on fire insurances, as
well
duty on marine insurances. Well might
Oxleasns the
tern exclaim, " See with what little wisdom.
the world is governed !" The worthy inventor of these
duties, if he could be accused of thinking at all, must
of course have contemplated the advantages of houses
being burnt down, and of ships being wrecked. The
real tendency of these duties must be considered as a
bonus upon arson, and an encouragement to ship-
wreck. 1 he magnitude of the duty on marine insur-
ances, as Mr. Robinson justly urged, " as' compared
with the amount of the risk has prevented many indi,
viduals from insuring to cover their risk ; thus intro-
ducing a principle of reckless imprudence that was
greatly to be deprecated in the transactions of com-
merce." Enough has been said to demojstrate that
this is not a mere question of pounds, sham, amid

pense ; and the argument might he allowed to termi-
nate here. But let us look at the matter financially,
and we shall then perceive that the vicious principle
on which the duty is based, as in all other cases where
common sense is violated by absurd restrictions on
commercial transactions, defeats its own object. It is
defective, taking the narrowest view of it, as a financial
measure. In proof that the tax has failed, Mr. Ro-
binson stated " that in the year 1832, the exports of
this country amounted to 88,000,0001., and the stamp
duties raised on marine insurances amounted to
300,0001. In the year 1833, the exports had advanced
to 120,000,0001., and instead of there being, as might
be expected, a proportional advance in the amount of the
tax to 400,000/., it had actually fallen to 200,000/."
There is no occasion to adduce any additional matter
of fact to •show the abortive impolicy of the tax. We
might enforce the argument by the inference that
foreigners, who otherwise would insure their property
in this country, are deterred from doing so by this tax.
But no better criterion of the impolicy of a tax can
be adduced than the striking fact above quoted—shr'w-
ing a diminution of the tax keeping pace with an
augmentation of the commercial transactions on which
that tax is laid. In conclusion, we shall merely say,
that we leave the matter with confidence in the hands
of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. We are per-
fectly convinced that he shares the liberal opinions
placed on record by several of his colleagues as con-
cerns the financial impolicy of the duties in question ;
for not only is the Lord Advocate understood to have
expressed similar opinions in the Edinburgh Review,
but the President of the Board of Trade, Mr. P.
Thomson, in his speech made in March, 1830, and
Sir Henry Parnell, in his admirable work " On Fi-
nance," deprecated the' pernicious absurdity of these
ditties, and urged the necessity of their early abrog'a-
tioit.—Morning Advertiser.

,1

•

Y , •
3 . t ~, i
. 4 1 N

SUN OFFICE, Seven o' clock.
• _
ME LONDON GAZETTE