The Sun.
London, England, 1841-05-14 00:00:00

gitc nu.

LONDON:
FRIDAY, MAY 14, 1841.

The Earl of WARWICK, last night, in the House of
Lords, took an exception to a petition presented by Earl
FITZWILLIAM against the Corn-laws, because the great
majority of those who signed it were females, who could
not write their own names.

Earl FITZWILLIAM, thus challenged to defend the right
of petitioning, truly and justly said the people were not
to be deprived of the right of expressing their opinions
because they were not as well educated as Peers. At
the same time he rebuked their Lordships for the tem-
per in which they received thepetitions of the Ftvkile, and
plainly told them that the want of education
in the people was caused by the neglect of the Peers.
Honour to Earl FITZWILLIAM—we need not despair of
success while there is one man, and he has an excellent
coadjutor in the Earl of RADNOR, who boldly tells their
Lordships truth like Earl FITZWILLIAM. He is, how-
ever, their best friend and the truest patriot.
The Earl pf HARDWICKE, a ship captain, a friend pro-
bably to impressment and the use of the cat-o'-nine-tails,
said truly, though he meant it sneeringly, that Earl FITZ-
WILLIAM had made a speech which would make the
people believe the Noble Earl was their friend. The
ship captain, however, said, as a matter of reproach
to the Noble Earl, that he only wanted to substitute a
fixed duty for a sliding scale. If Lord HARDWICRE be
a total and immediate repealer, let him say so, and
gain the golden opinions, the possession of which he
envies in Earl FITZWILLIAM.
The Earl of RADNOR obtained a return of the names
of all persons who have received compensation for slaves,
which, when it shall be published, will be a most useful
index to some gentlemen's opinions and characters.

We cannot conclude without expressing our delight at
seeing their Lordships fretting and fuming night after
night under the goads of the people's petitions. Peti-
tion again, as long as a Peer can be found who will
lay the petitions before them ; and when they close their
doors against petitions, they will cut the last link of re-
spect by which the people are bound to them. Their
Lordships did no business of the least importance.
In the Commons a great number of petitions were
presented, chiefly on the repeal of the Corn-laws.
Mr. MuNTz moved an Address to her MAJESTY, to
institute an inquiry into the conduct of the Earl of CAR-
DIGAN, in the command of the 11th Hussars. The Hon.
Member said that he undertook the task in consequence
of numerous solicitations. He supported his motion by
a reference to those well known facts which have
made the name of CARDIGAN notorious through the land.

Mr. MacekTLAv opposed the motion, principally on the
ground that the House ought to interfere as little as
possible with the exercise of the Royal prerogative in
military matters, particularly as to rewarding or punish-
ing. He referred also to the circumstance of officers
buying their commissions, which Mr. MACAULAY seemed to
think justified them in using the power they bought as
they liked. But Lord HILL and the Duke of WEL-
LINGTON were of opinion that, to flog a man on the
Sabbath, in a place devoted, a short time before, to re-
ligious worship—substituting the halberts for the altar
—was not an offence to subject a man to a court-martial.
If they had said a Colonel, we should have assented to
their doctrine. He is of the rank of privileged wrong-
doers ; but any person of a meaner rank, who had so
violated public decen,,y would have been brought to a
court-martial and cashiered, as was Captain REYNOLDS,
for an offence infinitely less. Mr. lLtcauLAY was quite
sure that no improper motives could be imputed to him
for resisting the motion, for Lord CARDIGAN was a po-
litical opponent, and he did not know him by sight.
Lord G. LENNOX vindicated the Earl of CARDIGAN
from a charge of having given an officer the lie, but at
the same time admitted that something of the kind had
occurred in the dining-room, where the offence of the
" black bottle" was perpetrated, which the Horse Guards
thought a serious affair in Captain REYNOLDS. Another
instance of grievous partiality in the Horse Guards.
Mr. W. 0. STANLEY supported the motion.

Sir H. VIVIAN was authorised by the Earl of CAR-
DIGAN to express his deep regret for having flogged a
man on the Sabbath, which Sir HUSSEY said deserved
unqualified censure. He disapproved, however, of the
motion.

Lord HowtcK, after Colonel VERNER, Mr. EWART,
and Mr. WARBURTON had each said a few words, ex-
pressed his concurrence with Mr. MAca.rmaY.
Colonel SALWEY said the conduct of the Earl of CAR-
DIGAN had created not only dissatisfaction but dis-
gust in the army. On a division the motion was
lost by 58 to 135. We presume, therefore, that no other
effort will now be made to remove th7e Earl of CARDIGAN
from his command. From his own sensibility we antici-
pate nothing—a man who could brave the odium which
he has braved must be insensible to shame. There is no
making him feel, as the old saying goes, without breaking
his back.
The adjourned debate was then resumed, Mr. GLAD-
STONE bespeaking a hearing when Lord Howicx should
be in the House, to vindicate a certain maker of sugar in
Demerara at the expense of the lives of many slaves.
Mr. BROTHERTON vigorously but briefly supported the
Ministers, described the distress of the manufacturing
districts as dreadful, and denounced both the sugar
duties and the Corn-laws, the last of which, he said, he
hoped would be torn from the Statute-book.
Captain HAMILTON opposed the Ministers, but recom-
mended, if they wished to benefit the-poor, to remove
the Corn-tax altogether. •
Mr. ALSTON opposed the Ministers 'on-the Corn-laws,
but on the sugar ditties them. would-support
3,
Mr. HaItLAND opposed the motion, as injurious to the
West India interests.

Mr. Hum assured the How that the measures. of