The Sun.
London, England, 1847-07-20 00:00:00

fliørnnAruit

LONDON, TUESDAY, JULY 20, 1847.

Sir ROBERT PEEL has constituted himself a great
Leader of the English People. by proving himself
himself
Patriotic Statesman. His retirement from
office in the government of these realms can never be
forgotten : it was invested with the dignity cf an
historic event by the enthusiasm of the
whole nation for a falling but triumphant
Minister. Since that memorable occasion the
late Premier has lived in comparative retire-
ment ;
comparative, we say, merely in reference to
the prominent position occupied by him in the House
of the representative Legislature during the five
years preceding. Sir ROBERT has at length emerged
from this partial privacy by publishing an Address to
his constituency at Tamworth. That Address, how-
ever, belongs not exclusively to the electors of
Tamworth ; it is the property of the whole kingdom,
it is for the perusal of every enfranchised citizen in
the empire.
Some declaration of opinion, some defir.ite an-
nouncement of principle, some explanatory allusions
to the past, some assurances and auguries as to the
future, were expected from Sir ROBERT PEEL imme-
diately upon the dissolution of the Long Parliament,
of which he had lost the
during the existence
obedience of a Great Party, and gained the gratitude
and affections of a Great
People. Sir ROBERT PEEL
has fulfilled all these expectations by his comprehen
sive letter to his constituents.
nire:,toes of the
Formerly the electioneering ma
Right Hon. Baronet the representative of Tamworth
were little better than political puzzles. The Ad-
drees before us—every word and numeral of which
we have studied with the attention demanded by a
document of such significance and importance—
is eminently the reverse of its predecessors. It is
penned in the homeliest style imaginable ; but that
very characteristic of homeliness, both in manner and 1
language, imparts an extraordinary forcefulness to 1
the composition. Nothing could be more straight-
forward, more manly, more independent, more
candid, more conclusive than the explanation given
by the ex-Prime Minister of his conduct throughout
the period of his Administration. Nothing could be
more singularly indicative of the soundness of his

position before the country than the solicitation of
the suffrages of the Tamworth electors by which
that explanation is accompanied—a solicitation so
graceful in utterance, and yet so uncompromising in
dignity. The Address, indeed, will be doubly wel-
come to the community at large ; it will be welcome
as an explicit retrospect of a policy which has been
productive of incalculable benefits to the million ;
and, above all, it will be welcome as a token that the
inaugurator of that policy is staunch in his adherence
to the cause of progression and improvement. Sir R.
PEEL is fully committed to the popular move-
ment. Liberalism is bis political creed. The greatest
good to the greatest number is the end of all his as-
pirations as a politician; and—seeing that his obser-
vations upon the Maynooth grant, upon the penal
enactments, and upon the extension to all religious
classes of the blessings of national education, imply the
most catholic tolerance—we are justified in regarding
as his favourite motto, " Civil and Religious Li-
berty." The retrospect taken by Sir ROBERT PEEL
is, as we have already intimated, most satisfactory ;
but how could it be otherwise ? The Right
Hon. Baronet can only look back with exultation
upon the closing achievements and predominant ten-
dency of his Administration. Referring to the state
of our foreign relations at that period, he can only
remember the honourable compromise effected with
regard to Oregon, whereby continued jealousies and
probable warfare, between Great Britain and the
United States, were prevented; he can only remember
the triumphal progress of our arms in the defence
and development of our Oriental possessions ; he can
only remember the prolonged and continuous peace
preserved between ourselves and the other kingdoms
of Christendom. Referring to the measures adopted
by himself and his colleagues for the development and
preservation of the Established Church, he recalls to
mind the fact of their having afforded facilities for
religious instruction to no less than 764,000 souls
hitherto excluded from that instruction by the paucity
of the churches when compared with the general
population. And, referring to the financial and com-
mercial innovations effected under his especial
guidance, he enumerates a series of such marvellous
and beneficent changes (faits accompli), as it has
never before fallen to the lot of any statesman to
catalogue. .

A profound interest is attached to this portion of
Sir R. PEEL'S manifesto. The details, it is true, are
no more than a recapitulation of the speeches deli-
vered in the House of Commons by the Right Hon.
Baronet on proposing the total, but gradual, abolition
of the laws obstructing the importation of foreign
grain—the recapitulation, however, is more concise,
and, if possible, more convincing and unanswerable
than the orations it echoes. Again, does the ex-
Premier aver that his conversion from the doctrines
of Protection to those of Free-trade was not as abrupt
as his present antagonists asseverate. He proves that
in his instance there was no sudden " jumping to con-
clusions ;" that, on the contrary, his financial policy
tended, from 1842 inclwively, to the ultimate reali-
sation of freedom to commerce. Nevertheless, he is
not ashamed to acknowledge, as he nobly acknow-
ledgel on retiring from authority, that his confidence
in the so-called protective system was materially
weakened " by the conflict of argument on the prin-
ciple of a restrictive policy," meaning thereby the
peaceful agitation of the Anti-Corn-law League, and
the logical eloquence of its illustrious chieftain, Mr.
COBDEN. To the awful deficiency of provisions,
moreover, caused by the mysterious destruction of
the potato crops in 1845, he attributes in a particular
manner his final determination to demand the abro-
gation of the corn-laws. Famine was indeed to him
what the Sibyl was to the Prince of Viauzz.—at once a
warning and a guide. Famine warned him from an
obstinate persistence in the obsolete blunder of pro-
tection, while it led him on to the golden glories of
free trade ; it pointed not from the luco to the antro,
not from the grove to the cavern, but from the dark-
ness and confinement of old laws to the light and
liberty of new ones.
" Procul 0, procul este, profani,
Conclamat vates, totoque absistite luco.
Tuque invade viam, vaginique eripe ferrum ;
Nunc a.nimis opus, lEnea, nuns pectore firm°.
Tan iitn pffata, turens antro se immisit aperto:
Ilk ducem haud timidis vadentem passibus mqult."
Famine threatened ; experience conquered a moiety
of prejudices ; reason and argument overcame the
remainder. Sir ROBERT proclaimed to his colleagues
the necessity of opening the ports and of blotting the
restrictive laws upon corn from the statute-book :
the Conservative party was thereby deprived of its
creator, and he himself was expelled from office, though
he was accompanied in his retirement by the accla-
mations of his fellow-countrymen.

History sill tell that those acclamations were well
deserved, that they were deserved because of the in-
troduction of a financial and commercial policy which
has in truth tended "to furtify the established in-
stitutions of this country, to inspire confidence in the
equity and benevolence of the Legislature, to main-
tain the just authority of an hereditary nobility," and
—what is more practically beneficial than all—" to
better the condition of those who labour for their
subsistence." By the establishment of an income-
tax and the removal of imposts from articles of
consumption, whether as food or as the materials of
manufacture, Sir ROBERT PEEL relieved the poorer
classes from the burden of contributing in undue pro-
portions to the national revenue, and removed the re-
sponsibility of the maintenance of the credit of our
exchequer to those more opulent classes among which
he himself is notoriously numbered. This considera-
tion it is which justifies the Right Honourable
Baronet in saying so emphatically, in allu-
sion to his determination, in the November of 1845,
to abolish the restrictions against the introduction of
grain from foreign countries—" I am wholly un-
conscious of any single motive of self-interest, personal
or political, which was not calculated to bias my judg-
ment in favour of an opposite conclusion." Knowing
the accuracy of this assurance, the population of Great
Britain cannot but recognise in the consequent retire-
ment of Sir ROBERT PEEL from authority the sacri-
fice of Place to Patriotism.
What will the electors of Tam worth do ? What
will be the influence of this Address over the
scattered divisions of the Conservative party ? The
answer must be obvious to themselves. Sir ROBERT
shows that he is neither a wavering supporter of
Expediency, nor a sycophantic aspirant for the votes
of any single constituency in the empire. On the
contrary, he evidences that he is an honest convert
and a manly candidate. If, therefore, the enfran-
chised inhabitants of Taraworth are conscientiously
opposed to the course adventured upon by their
distinguished representative, they have had pointed
out to them by that very representative himself the
only path which now remains open to their inde-
pendence. Whatever may be the decision of his
constituents, however, Sir ROBERT PEEL will retain
the affection and admiration of the people, because in
becoming a Reformer of singular audacity, he has
become also a National Benefactor.

In the observations which we offered on Friday,
respecting the clause proposed by Mr. G. ALEIANDEE:
HAMILTON to be inserted in the Bankruptcy and
Insolvency Bill, we stated that none of the
parties seemed aware of the fact that an Act had
been passed in the year 1841, by which members of
the Irish bar were qualified to be appointed to any of
the offices abolished by the Bill, and generally to
any judicial office, unless specially excluded. On
inquiry we have learned that Mr. HAMILTON men-
tioned the existence of this provision, although
from
the confusion which unfortunately prevailed
in the House at the time it was not reported, and 1
, from the line of argument adopted by its opponents it
to b
render
e c i
nju s
tinjustice
to
an unintentional
did not appearunderstood. We hasten to cor-
rect our
person, and we should regret
it the more inthe present instance, as, although
y Pr
or. We should be sorry to
r. HAMILTON in political feeling,
wholly opposed to M
: he was at the time endeavouring' to obtain an act of
; justice for a highly respectable body of his country-
; men, and to promote an object whiecohplAe-eofare
the satisfied
United
would be highly beneficial to the p
Kingdom generally.
1 It was considered desirable to obtain a legis-
lative declaration of the rights of the Irish b
although no new enactment might be rear,-
quired to confer that right, and it was with
that view that Lord CAMPBELL introduced the
clause to which we have already alluded, although
Lord LYNDBTJBST, on its introduction, stated that he i
conceived it to be unnecessary, for be never under-

THE SUN,

stood when the term "barrister" or "barrister-at-
law" was used in any Act, that it did not include
Irish as well as English barristers—indeed, the Le•
gislature must mean by the term persons who are
competent to practise before its own tribunal, in any
of its branches, in that capacity; and it is now uni- I
versally acknowledged that an Irish barrister is qua-
lified to appear at the bar of either House. But it is
important, not only that the privilege should exist,
but that it should be acted on and carried into prac-
tical effect—not merely that parties should be eligible
to office, but that there should be a reciprocal opening
of the Courts in each country.
There can be no sufficient reason urged against
the admission of the Irish bar to a full participation
in all the rights and privileges conceded to their
brethren and vice versa. The privileges of the bar
are admittedly not for their own benefit, but for that
of the suitors in the several courts, of the clients who
may have occasion to avail themselves of their ser-
vices. The great ob ect to be achieved in either
country is clearly to obtain persons of competent
ability and learning, and of unblemished reputation.
The Irish bar will not be found wanting in any of
these respects. Sir EDWARD SUGDEN, a witness
whose authority as to legal endowments will scarcely
be impeached in this country, has borne the strongest
testimony to the merits cf the Irish bar, and stated
that in the depth of their research, the extent of their
attainments, and in the skill, talent, and integrity
with which they applied their knowledge, they were
second to none. A student in Ireland is subjected to
as many tests, before he is admitted to practice, as in
this country ; nay, more, he is compelled to become
a member of one of the Inns of Court in London,
and thus, in addition to the legal education afforded
in Ireland, to go through everything that is required
as a qualification for the English bar. Why, then,
should a system be kept up that perpetuates differences
between the nations that it is in every respect de-
sirable to have abolished? It is not for the benefit of
the suitors. If the Irish bar are so far beneath the
English, as alleged by some, they will speedily find
their proper level, and the English practitioners will
have little reason to shrink from the competition ;
nay, they would be the great gainers by the change,
for an extensive field would be opened to them, in
which they would speedily attain the pre •eminence
due to their superior acquirements.

The opinions of Lord CAMPBELL on this subject
are well known. That distinguished lawyer has long
expressed the greatest anxiety for the abolition of
every distinction. In his evidence before the Com-
mittee on Legal Education he says, in answer to
question 3,869, "My own opinion is, that there
ought to be one bar for England and Ireland, and
that a barrister who practises in England should be
entitled to practice at the Irish bar also." And to
the question (3,874), "Do you think it would be
advisable also that English judges should go the Irish
circuits, and Irish judges the English ?" he says, " I
feel that so strongly, that I have several times pro-
posed in the House of Lords that the- system should
be adopted." Lord WELLESLEY was of opinion that
it would tend very much to benefit the United
Kingdom if there were one bar for England
and Ireland ; and that there should be an in-
terchange—" that English barristers should be
appointed as Irish judges and Irish should be
appointed as English judges." it And, again
when asked, " whether there was not a considerable
difference in the law, and the practice of the law in
the two countries, and whether that would not inter-
fere with the interchange," replied, " I do nut at all
agree in that, the difference between them is quite
trifling. The common law of England and Ireland
is the same, and there is no material difference in the
practice." To this convincing testimony, which must
be conclusive to every unprejudiced mind, we may
add that of Lord BROUGHAM, who states that "he
can see no objection' to allow English and Irish bar-
risters to practise reciprocally in each country," and
that it might tend very much to correct the Irish
practises. His Lordship adds, "lam a great friend
to sending over from time to time an English Judge
to preside on the Irish bench, and I should
see no objection whatever to bring over an
Irish Judge occasionally to this country. I
see no objection whatever to that interchange."
Having thus stated the opinion of the two greatest
legal reformers of modern days, we shall quote those
of a sound practical man of business, a gentleman to
whom we have already alluded in favourable terms,
and whose character and reputation is well known in
both countries. Mr. PEIRCE MAHONT says—" I hope
I shall live to see the time when English barristers will
be made Irish Judges, and Irish barristers English
Judges; the more the distinctions of country are
broken, the better for the United Kingdom."
It is unnecessary to multiply proofs of the pro-
priety and expediency of the change. In fact, there
is nothing that can be urged in opposition, except the
advantage of preserving a monopoly to a certain class—
a sort of protection to native English industry, which
will not, we are sure, be resorted to by any of the
high-minded or able men that adorn the English bar.
We are sure that they would not interpose such an
objection to the adoption which would be for the
general benefit, even if their personal interests were
more deeply involved than could possibly be the case.

The Madrid mail of the 12th had not reached Paris
when the post left on Saturday.

We have received the Paris papers of Friday and
Saturday.

On Saturday the Court of Peers pronounced
judgment in the case of General CUBIERES and his
co accused. They are all found guilty of corruption.
TESTE is sentenced to three years' imprisonment, to
deprivation of civil rights, and to pay a fine of
94,0001., besides refunding the 95,000 f. he had re-
ceh ed as a bribe, and which sum is confiscated for
the benefit of the hospitals. CUBIERES is deprived
of his civil rights and condemned to pay a fine of
I 0,0001.; and PARMENTIER has had passed on him a
similar sentence, with the addition of being mulcted
in all the costa of the trial. AI. PELLAPRA was
expected to arrive in Paris on Sunday in order to
surrender and take his trial.

The Reform Banquet at the Chateau Rouge still
continues to be the great subject of comment in all
the Paris papers. Had the Minister who inspires the
Journal des Debats been wise he would have adhered
to his first resolution, and have made no allusion
whatever to the matter. In the exuberance of his
dynastic loyalty, however, he could not resist com-
menting on the omission to drink the health of Loris
PHILIPPE, and stigmatizing that meeting, in
consequence, as one compromising public order.
This attack has brought forth the following crushing
reply from the National:—

" All is lost. Public order is compromised. Anarchy
is raising its hideous head. We are rolling from abyss
to abyss to the follies of communism. The question be-
fore us relates to the ruin of society! It is the Journal
des Debats which this morning utters this cry of alarm
—not apropos of complaint—not with respect to the
scandalous trial—not with regard to the ignoble pro-
ceedings of the Government. No; those are great, pure.
and glorious! But the Reformist banquet of the Château.:
Rouge, that is the destruction society! That is the
commencement of the abyss! MM. Duvergier de Hau-
ranne, Leon Malleville, Odillon Barrot, and eighty•five
of their colleagues, have been guilty of the infamy of
assisting at a banquet at which the King's health was
not proposed! Can you figure to yourself a similar
horror? The King, the living and incarnate law! At
that impious meeting it was prefer red to toast the
sovereignty of the people and the revolution of July!
What abomination! The guests dared to utter ardent
wishes for the reform of a legislation which has given
us 225 satisfied Deputies, comprising M. Dugalie!
What oblivion of every morality! They went further
—they spoke of the rights of those excluded from
political power, of the sufferings and the merits of all
those citizens whose political laws pay labour by ingra-
titude. They appealed to the justice and the solicitude
of public opinion against those odious iniquities of social
organisation its opposition to the moat numerous and ill-
treated classes. In that assembly of privileges, in the
name of the census, all sentiments were in accord to
proclaim the necessi y for modity ing the political instru-
ment which supports, propagates, and increases all
disorders. And, as if all these facts were not sufficient
to characterise that infernal meeting, those present
carried their audacity so far as to propose a toast to the
'rigs become excited when think of that ignominy!
press!—and they did not drink to the King! Our feel-
King's health ? Are not Deputies bound under the
IHow could M. Duvergier dine without drinking the
penalty of outlawry to commence by a monarchical
benedicite? As soon as they happen to meet, in an
official assembly or not, they are obliged to renew
even
nr oshaothuidof
tfihdoyeliteyxpaonsde homagethat
to his Majesty,
Majesty toreceive
worst compliment ! The elect of the legal
nation are, consequently, regarded as a flock of func-
tionaries! They are cowards or poltroons because they
associate with the most select of the electors of Paris,
who, leaving aside men, wish to occupy
themselves