The Sun.
London, England, 1838-02-27 00:00:00

must require enlargement, if all are to be sent there who
share and express Mr. O'CONNELL'S opinions. As Mr.
HUME said, there will perhaps be sixty or seventy, and
there will be no end to such proceedings. Lord MAID-
STONE, however, not quite bold enough to send Mr.
O'CONNELL to Newgate, moved that be be reprimanded by
Mr. SPEAKER. On this question a subsidiary debate arose,
more stormy, and carried on amid greater impatience
and louder cries than the first. Lord Jong RUSSELL
asked for precedents ; Mr. WYNN, as ready as a creditor's
ledger when a debtor requests his bill, supplied them. Mr.
BAREON, in relation to the Ipswich Committee, was guilty
of the same offence as had just been declared a breach of
privilege in Mr. O'CONNELL. Finally, after a noisy
squabble, worthy of the motion out of which the whole un-
seemly contest grew, the debate on the question that
Mr. O'CONNELL be reprimanded was adjourned to
this evening. The triumph is not yet complete, and
it is still in the power of the Reformers to make the
victory profitless to the Tories. All the Liberal Membe-
should attend the House this evening, and declare it
Mr. D. CALLAGHAN, their conviction of the trutn a Mt.
O'CONNELL'S statinr.tat teeter that they should 'rote
that Mr. O'CoN emu. receive the thanks of the House
by the mouth of the SPEAKER, for having honestly and
boldly, to the advantage of the House and the public, given
expression to opinions which are echoed by the nation at
large. Unless they do something of the kind, three or four
Liberal Members may perhaps be sent to Newgate, and
the majorities both in Election Committees and in the
House will be secured to the Tories for the remainder of
the Session.

In the House of Lords last night an intemperate dis-
cussion arose on a motion made, without previous notice

by Lord LYNDHURST, for a return of the number of chil-
dren under sixteen years of age committed for the last seven
years for imprisonment in the Milbank Penitentiary. The

Noble and Learned Baron prefaced his motion with a speesh
in which he cited the instances of infantine solitary confine-

ment reprobated on Thursday last by the Middlesex
Magistrates, and expressed his astonishment that such

abuses should be found to exist in a prison under the im-
mediate supervision of the Home Secretary. Lord MEL-
BOURNE complained that the usual courtesies of the House

had not been observed—the Noble and Learned Baron not

having given notice of his intention to make such a motion ;
that the Government were not implicated in the affair,but only
the officers of the Penitentiary ; and that his Lordship was

unable to say whether the instances of solital7 confinement
referred to in the speech of the Noble and Learned Baron
were, or were not, true. Lord BROUGHAM warmly de-
fended the course adopted by Lord LYNDHURST, and as-

sorted that, without any knowledge of the intentions of the
Noble and Learned Baron, he had come down to the
House with the express purpose of making such a motion.
He ridiculed the idea of any necessity for a notice of a
motion, the subject of which was so notorious ; and with
that solemnity of manner, which adds so forcibly to the
bitterness of his sarcasms, presumed that the Noble Vis-
count did now and then bestow some attenf on on what was
passing around him, albeit he was the only person in the
country ignorant of the facts stated by Lord LYNDHURST.
Lord MELBOURNE replied in a strain which no friend of
the Government—no personal well-wisher of the Noble
Viscount—can peruse without deep regret. His Lordship's
invocation of the presence of the Duke of WELLINGTON was as
undignified—as unbecoming the head of a Liberal Govern-
ment, supported by the suffrages of the people, and the
countenance of the SOVEREIGN—as his implied charges
against Lord LYNDHURST were unworthy of his high cha-
racter and exalted station. What is it to the country, or
to any independent Peer of Parliament, what course the
Noble Duke might pursue upon this or that question ?

Why should Noble Lords be twitted with want of honour,
because they choose to exercise their Parliamentary
privileges without consulting the convenience of any
Cabinet ? To presume that a Pcer can prove himself not
a man cf honour and a gentleman by the simple exercise of
his privileges as a legislator, is to cast a great, r stigma upon
the Upper House than was ever attempted by the Mem-
bers of the Long Parliament, by whom it was voted a
nuisance. Never before did the Noble Viscount at the
head of the Government allow the warmth of his temper
\ to betray him into se grave an error—an error only half
of which was even partially amended by his subsequent ex-
planation. Lord LYNDHURST expressed himself perfectly
satisfied with the explanation of Noble Viscount ; but will
it be equally satisfactory to Parliament and the country
Notwithstanding the high estimation in which the
public and private character of the Noble Viscount
is held, we do not think that such sallies of tern-
per—such displays of absolute deference to the opi-
nions of the Duke of WELLINGTON in the Lords,
and Sir ROBERT PEEL in the Commons—will be much
longer patiently tolerated by . the peop:e. The ma-

jority of her MAJESTY'S Ministers have long since arrived
at years of discretion ; and they are for the most part too
well known to indulge a hops that it would be possible to
pistol the country into a better opinion of them. Physical
courage is so common a quality in England that any display
of it would go a short way to establish the moral and in-
tellectual fitness of any person to a seat in the Cdoinet ;
and how much less that which would manifest itself in ac-
cepting a challenge from so peaceable and so grave an
individual as an ex-Lord Chancellor of England?
It is excessively painful to us to be thus forced,
day after day, to allude so prominently to the constant
mistakes committed by the leading Members of the
Cabinet—to be obliged to dwell upon errors which might
so easily be avoided—and wh'ch cm have no other result
than that of affording an ultimate triumph to their ene-
mies. What could be more preposterous than to try to
get up a personal quarrel with Lord BROUGHAM, on such
a subject as the Canada Bill? What less becoming
a Minister of the • Crown than to meet a motion
for certain returns, to which not the shadow of
opposition ought not to be made, by insinuations against
the purity of his honour ? Ministers must avoid such
blunders as these if they intend to retain the direction
of her MAJESTY'S Councils. They must also look to their
own ranks for support, and not insult the country by ap-
pearing to owe their places to the Parliamentary courtesy
of the Duke of WELLINGTON and Sir ROBERT PEEL.
If they cannot stand upon the Reform influence in
either House, let them say so at once—let them treat
the people with confidence—and the power which carried
the Reform Bill will yet be found a match even for a Tory
majority in Parliament. As to the facts referred to in
Lord LYNDHURST'S speech, it will he seen from the
debate that Lord JOHN RUSSELL contradicted them in the
House of Commons. To ascertain the truth, we must
wait for the returns moved for by the Noble and Learned
Baron, and which in a few days will be laid on the table
of the Upper House.

The Tory Members have now an opportunity of carry-
ing into full effect the object of the SPOTTISWOODE COO-
!piracy. Let Lord MAIDSTONE follow up the two reso-
lutions adopted last evening, and move (for a reprimand is
sheer mockery), that Mr. O'CONNELL be committed to
Newgate, he has Tory example for his rule. BURDETT
and HOEHOUSE were committed for less serious imputa-
tions on the character of Members, and if the Noble Lord
wish to be consistent, and also useful to his party, he ought
to adopt the precedent—he would then have an op-
portunity of moving that the whole Tail be committed :
he may be sure it will follow the head, and what would be
the result ?—A majority of Tories in the House of Com-
mons. This, to be sure. would be very ridiculous, and
very absurd; because, instead of vindicating the character
of the House, it would only excite the sympathy of the
other Catholic Members—make them claim the same
honour, and prove to the Irish nation what Mr. O'Cox-
NELL has over and over again asserted, that he despairs of
justice to Ireland from a British Parliament. But even the
proceedings up to the close of last night's debate will con-
vince the Irish Catholics that they cannot yet obtain
justice. A Bishop declares that all the Catholic Members
are guilty of treachery and perjury—a petition is presented
to the House embodying the same Christian senti-
ments—these are re-echoed by many Hon. Members,
and no proceedings follow. But when Mr. O'CON-
NELL returns the compliment, and avers, what no man
denies, that Election Committees do not render justice,
he is stigmatised by 263 Members as a foul and scandalous
libeller. Is this the way to convince Irishmen that a
British Parliament will judge impartially between them
and Englishmen ? We rejoice at the result. It will put
an end to an abominable system, and it will convince the