The Sun.
London, England, 1840-01-31 00:00:00

LONDON
FRIDAY, JANUARY 31, IMO.

A number of petitions were presented in the Com-
mons, but none of any note.
Notices of motions were given by Lord G. LENNOX
for the 13th of February, for the names of the members
of the Naval and Military Commission ; by Lord STAN-
LEY, on the same day, for a Bill to amend the Registra-
tion of Voters in Ireland ; and by Mr. EMERSON
TENNENT, of a Bill for regulating Stage Coaches in
Ireland. This gentleman seems ambitious of being a
universal legislator. Other business was postponed
in order to resume the adjourned debate, which occu-
pied the whole evening till midnight.
The first speaker was Lord POWERSCOURT, a I\l-
- of poor parts and great pretensions. The ob.scr-
cations of Mr. MACAULAY, which one public writer has
described as common-place, furnished the matter for his
Lordship's criticisms. He flouted the Secretary at
War for speaking disparagingly of Privy Councillors,
and ridiculed historical allusions, which the Noble Lord
had the unhappiness apparently not to understand.
He described the Government as weak, and, which is its
greatest crime in the eyes of all the bigots, as not being
zealous for the Church.
Mr. Fox MAULE ridiculed the Noble Lord for
satirizing a prepared essay in an elaborately pre-
pared speech, and very properly laughed at
the miserable attacks which have been made
on the Government, because Mr. O'CONNELL
has dined with the Lord Lieutenant of IRELAND.
The principal part, however, of Mr. MAULE'S speech
was a defence of the Home Department for the ap- i
pointment of Magistrates, and put down a great mul-
titude of calumnies, by merely mentioning that 1,000
Magistrates had been appointed under the Municipal
Corporation Bill, and that of them only two had
been found fault with. His vindication of the appoint-
ment of Mr. FROST was complete, for he proved that
it was long before ho had become a Chartist, and with
the approbation of FROST'S neighbours. In like man-
ner, his eulogium on Mr. MUNTZ ought to shame his
miserable calumniators, who suffer their paltry spite to
abuse those whom they cannot conquer. For dates and
facts connected with the administration of the Home
Department, Mr. Ala treE's speech is worthy of being
read. His comparison between the proceedings of the
Tories, and the proceedings of the present Adimins-
tration was a triumphant vindication of the latter from
the attacks of the former. • Had the Whigs followed
less the Tory example they would have been more ea-
sily vindicated to this generation and more honoured by
posterity. We were glad to hear from Mr. MAULE that
he is an advocate for doing away with the Property
Qualification, and he ably defended his opinion by the
example of that part of the country to which be belongs.
Mr. LIDDELL repeated the old Tory story, that Char-
tism had ar;sen from the encouragement of the Whigs,
and that the Cabinet being composed of twelve men,
not of twelve blocks, did not agree in all their opinions.
Captain PECIIELL, by quoting facts, convicted Sir
JAMES GRAHAM of having made, the night before,
in respect of the Navy, several mistatements.
Sir JAMES GORDON was not removed from Chatham on
political reasons, but because he received his flag ; and
Captain PLUMRIDGE and Lord A. CLARENCE PAGET
had both received their appointments, before contesting
Falmouth and Southampton, and had received no ap-
pointments since. The Gallant Captain, however, by
noticing a local preacher at Brighton, introduced an epi-
sode into the debate by which Lord STANLEY rather
profited.
Mr. LASCELLES, Mr. HANDLEY, Sir ADOLPHUS
DALRYMPLE, and Mr. SIDNEY HERBERT severally ad-
' dressed the House, filling up its time without adding
. much to the stock of information or amusement. The

latter gentleman's speech was not, however, destitute of
some smartness, nor was it wholly unrewarded by cheers.
Mr. WARD, who seems rising in the estimation of the
House, made an honest speech, which amused the
Tories, because they so seldom hear anything but
hypocritical, canting falsehoods. Mr. WARD openly
and boldly stated that he now supported the
Government, because it had acknowledged the principle
of progressive reform, because it bad made the Ballot an
opeu question, because Lord JoliN RUSEELL had con-
sented to abolish the rate-paying clauses, and because,
by supporting it, there was some hope of pro-
curing further measures to satisfy the people. Mr.
WARD made a hard hit at the shabby Opposition,
which has encouraged the crusade against the
Catholics, and, finding that it has failed,
has been silent on it in Parliament. Mr. WARD said,
further, that he supported the Government, personally,
because it had partly conceded to his views on the
management of Colonial lands. The Hon. Member
for Sheffield made a neat, business-like speech, with no
pomp or ostentation.
Lord STANLEY made a speech like himself, truculent
and almost savage. He declared, in the name of the
Tories—of which party this erewhile half-revolutionist
is now become the most Tory—hot and furious, and
continual war against the Government. To get place
the Noble Lord and his factious friends are to do all in
their power to embarrass the Government. Last session
he admitted the Tories had worn a mask, but now it
was thrown aside, and war against the Ministry, war
against improvement, war against change, without
which there can be no improvement, was loudly
and boldly declared. For what are this faction
to make war ? To keep up abuses, to strengthen
corruption ; further to enslave, debase, and impoverish
the bulk of the people, must be the patriotic answer.
The gist of the Noble Lord's speech was to reproach
Ministers for guiding their conduct by circumstances.
He would rule himself, and rule the State by his own
self-will. The reign of such despots, however, was
put an end to when newspapers became exten-
sively read. We do not deny Lord STAN-
LEY a fluent, but it is a waspish, eloquence. He
made undoubtedly some bits at the Ministers, and
encouraged them to be firm in their resistance to him
and his party by the lesson he gave them. They have
only, indeed, to look on the opposite benches, and see the
disgraced Sir R. PEEL, the man who would not go
right till he was repeatedly driven, to avoid
an imitation of Tory policy, much less what
Lord STANLEY countenanced—an obstinate adhe-
rence. The virulence with which Lord STANLEY
attacks his old friends and colleagues, the con-
tinued declararations he makes of his own strong will—