The Sun.
London, England, 1841-03-19 00:00:00

Zhe

• LONDON :
FRIDAY, MARCH 19, 1841.

The Peers were yesterday almost exclusively
engaged in examining witnesses at the bar, and
inquiring into the appointments of subordinate
officers under the New Poor-law in Ireland.
The pursuit is congenial to their Lordships' tastes,
and worthy of their abilities. When we have
ascertained—which cannot be till the examina-
tion is closed—what they have discovered, w€
shall make it known to our readers. Their Lord-
ships prosecuted their researches'till dinner time,
and adjourned at Eight o'Clock.

The Commons had several subjects before them.
First, Mr. HUME would insist on explaining to
the House the objects mentioned in a petition
from a large body of the people, which being
unpalatable to the Honourable House, as it ge-
nerally is, to listen to just complaints, Mr.
HUME was what is called put down by the
SPEAKER and the Honourable House.

Mr. RICE moved to refer the Report of the
Commissioners on Harbours of Refuge to a
Select Committee, to inquire into the state of
the Harbours of the South-Eastern Coast. The
motion was opposed by the leaders of both par-
ties, and after a considerable discussion was lost
by 102 to 38.

Mr. ALSTON, with creditable perseverance,
again brought the case of Captain LA ROCHE
under the notice of the House, and moved that
the petition be referred to a Select Committee.

Sir THOMAS COCHRANE and Admiral ADAM
opposed the motion, which was ultimately with-
drawn. Captain LA RocHE, it appears, was dis-
missed from his command in 1807 by the sen-
tence of a court-martial, and every successive
Admiralty to whom he has made application has
refused to remove the stigma then cast on him.
It was Mr. ALSTON'S object to procure a more
favourable verdict from the House of Commons,
but he failed.

Mr. EASTHOPE moved a resolution, that the
imprisonment of Mr. BAINES, for refusing to pay
Church-rates, was a punishment for acting on
the dictates of his conscience, and was a viola-
tion of the principles of religion and justice.
Our readers are well acquainted with the merits
of the case ; they know the honesty and inte-
grity of Mr. BAINES, and the vile oppression of
the Church, to which he is a victim.

The leaders of both parties in this case, too,
we regret to say, united against the resolution.
They condemned Mr. BAINES' conduct as a vio-
lation of law. Lord JOHN RUSSELL importu-
nately stigmatized it as a crime against so-
ciety. Sir ROBERT PEEL took similar ground,
and preached up obedience to the law
as indispensable to the peace of society.
If that be so, the law should be made just
and reasonable; and it is a terrible calamity
for society, and a terrible reproach to the law-
maker, when he enacts or maintains a law which
conscientious and honest men dare not obey. If
resistance to the law be a crime, there are great
criminals, far greater criminals than Mr. BAINES,
who, by making an unjust law, compel an
honest man to disobey it. That our whole system
of Church-rates is an injustice, the Legislature
has admitted. It abolished the system in Ire-
land, because it was unjust. It has condemned
the system in England, for the same reason. In
fact, a National Church, where men pro-
fess different religions, which cannot be national
for all, is a great injustice. By supporting and
maintaining the law which consigns a man to
gaol for not subscribing to what he regards as a
superstition, the House of Commons may bring
itself into contempt; it will neither make the
Nationalethope Cer
ehtsuoorllcuohtLeanipt r.
was
paAse
lotiesnrts
by
ai
ytiau t4iisonntt
e,orne4osort:inntodhude theee-
batep,
being, with the tellers and the SPEAKER, just 90
Members to decide this important
con-
cerning the liberty of the p
a question of office, there would
hlquestion
have been
hadbe
e n been6oopresent. Having achieved this piece of shabby
work, the House adjourned at Eleven o'Clock.

We insert elsewhere a few remarks from the
Liverpool Journal on someobrem
at L•'elvations of ours
relative to the late meeting iverpool, not
for the purpose of entering into a
controversy,
a -
but to publish what appears intended as
vin-
dication of the Liverpool merchants agaiestaa
sup-
posed accusation contained in The Sun.
We have
already expressed our regret that the exnl
tion, which satisfied Mr. DUFFEY, was not -naPub-
lished with the original report; and, having since
seen that explanation, we gave it a place in our
columns.
At the same time, we are not disposed to
withdraw anything we said against the conduct
of the middle elasseS in relation to the working
classes, Of the former) the latter are the.faith,
.._. •

40,
, vfraz
A 1,5 f
rAj,, A
• rr- 4,7
:44 ,T7"‹
-6-it' E •