The Sun.
London, England, 1841-06-10 00:00:00

,IJ tie _:-
,s ult,4

LONDON:
THURSDAY, JUNE 10, 1841.

The Lords did not meet yesterday.
The Commons met as usual.
Mr. HINDLE!. gave notice of a motion, for Friday, on
the Corn-laws, and Mr. WARD gave notice of a motion,
for the same day, to the effect that the ATTORNEY-GE-
NERAL be directed to prosecute Mr. SWANN, and
another person, for bribery at the Cambridge election,
when Mr. MANNERS SUTTON was chosen.
Mr. Sergeant JacasoN explained to the House that

the author of the charge which he had made in the

Rouse against Mr. O'CorrszLL was a Mr. ROBERT
Vlore Mr. O'CoNNELL said bore the appellation
Xkcii Twiss." So the Learned Sergeant took
a little additional shame by his new motion.
tfA,l,r. LOCKHART, Mr. Fox MAuLE said
3 ',lied not the power to prevent Clerks of
°es ofths ein Scotland from acting as politi-
. , efikagents.
CP '.
"" siently t llow(.1 his Bill against
AiginWthzt,o chop.

, The House went into a Committee upon the Dog.
Carts Bill, after a few spirited and proper observations
by Messrs. PaYME, WARBURTON, and HUME, and after
r division, on which 141 voted to put down dog-carts
in the country, and 30 to allow them
,be kept
up. The Liberals may see by the use that
is made of their aggressions on the liberties of
the people, what a fatal mistake they have committed.
They were told by Sir R. INGLIS that, instead of op-
posing this Bill, they ought to bring in a Bill to repeal
the dog-cart clause of the Metropolis Police Act.
In the Committee Mr. BULLER made an amusing
speech, which very happily ridiculed minute legislation ;
but it was thrown away on the gentlemen with micros-
copic intellects, to whom it was addressed, and the Bill
went through a Committee.
Mr. CRESSWELL moved that the House should go into
a Committee to address her MAJESTY on the subject of
the Danish claims.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL made a long speech against
the motion.

Sir STRATFORD CANNING and Mr. HUME supported
the motion.

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER made a few ob-
servations, but did not oppose going into a Committee, as
he would express his opinions, he said, on bringing up the
Report. After a few words from Mr. CRESSWELL, Sir C.
GREY, and Mr. P. HOWARD, the House went into Com-
mittee ; a resolution was agreed to ; and the Report was
ordered to be taken into consideration to-day.
The Charitable Trusts Bill was read a third time and
passed after a division on the third clause, to which Sir
E. SUGDEN objected, as having been framed for a poli-
tical purpose. The ATTORNEY-GENERAL assured the
House that the clause was necessary, and the House
showed that it was of the same opinion, by assenting to
the clause.

In a brief debate on the Houses of Industry (Ireland)
Bill, Sir E. KNATCHBULL condemned the Government
for presenting legislative measures contrary to their en-
gagements. It was shown, in reply, that the Bill in
question was not a Goverament Bill.
Colonel SIBTHORP, however, swelled out very big,
and spoke of the Government being idle, incapable,
and inefficient. Mr. Fox :MULE said he regarded
the observations of the Hon. Member as utterly below
contempt ; and Colonel Sinimoap, being thereat af-
fronted, walked out of the House. Then ensued a *mo-
tion of Mr. WYNN to order the Gallant Officer to attend
in his place ; and his presence being obtained, there was
one of those customary scenes of retractations and apolo-
gies that are neither retractations nor apologies, and there
the matter ended.
The Clerk of the Peace (Lancaster) Bill was recom
mitted after a division; a clause adding Birmingham to
the Bill, was incorporated with it, one to add Manches-
ter was lost on a division, and finally the Report was re-
ceived, and the Bill ordered to be read a third time
to-day.
On the further consideration of the Administration of
Justice Bill being moved, Sir E. St GDEN proposed
a clause to prevent the Bill coming into
operation till the 10th of October, alleging that it was
highly improper to allow a Government that had not the
confidence of the House of Commons to exercise all the
patronage which this Bill would bestow. He objected
also to establishing a new Court of Chancery at this
period of the year, and implied that the elections would
suspend the business of the Courts.
A debate ensued, in which it was contended by Lord
JOHN RUSSELL that it was treating Lord COTTENHAM
most invidiously to suspend the period for the Bill coming
into operation. It was throwing a discredit on him
which he did not deserve. It had been settled between the
parties that the Bill should pass, and the present opposi-
tion to it was not expected. Lord JOHN RUSSELL manfully
spoke up for the LORD CHANCELLOR. The Tories are
quite proud of their new-found strength, and taunted the
Whigs with being in a minority, and told them that to
allow the Bill to pass as they wished it, and to allow
them to exercise this patronage, would be a practical
proof of confidence in direct opposition to the vote of
want of confidence to which the House had come on Fri-
day. The motion was pressed to a division and the Mi-
nisters were defeated by 101 to 83.

Lord JOHN RUSSELL then declared that he would
withdraw the Bill. Lord STANLEY -threw on the Go-
vernment, if it did, the blame of delaying the adminis-
tration of justice. A good deal of conversation and
recrimination passed, and in the end the Bill was with-
drawn.

The measure has been at least two Sessions, if not
three, before Parliament ; and nothing but the urgency
of the case could have induced the Opposition to agree
that it should pass this Session. Having sanctioned it,
to prevent it corning into operation till October—for a
scramble for patronage, as Mr. HAwEs expressed it—
was, in our opinion, a disgrace to any party. It was, so
far as the Bill is intended to promote the adminis-
tion of justice—a denial of justice to suitors ;
and the conduct of the Tories deserves severe
censure. We cannot, however, approve of the with-
drawal of the Bill for the same reason. It is more a
denial of justice to withdraw it than to keep it back till
October. Lord J. RUSSELL should, we think, have
thrown on the Tories the responsibility of putting it off,
and should have passed it in the perfect confidence that
tfie present Ministers will have to make the appointments.
The withdrawal implied, we think, a conviction in Lord
John RUSSELL that he will not be in office in October.
Why should he express in any manner such a suspicion?
Neither party did itself any honour by its conduct, and
both parties brought, as Mr. B. WOOD remarked, the
administration of justice into discredit by making the
appointment of the Judges an obvious political job.

After this matter was at an end, several measures
were brought forward, and at One o'Clock the House
adjourned.

THE DANISH CLAIMS.

We have noticed the proceedings in Parlia-
ment on these claims in our summary, but we
deem it necessary to enter more at large into the
conduct of the Ministry on this particular, and,
in reality, very peculiar question.
It is an old adage that men who live in glass
houses should not throw stones. Now we sus-
pect that the present Government has been
carrying on in a glass house fbr some con-
siderable period, and that lately their house has
been rather damaged by the weather of public
opinion, but more especially by their own incon-
siderate conduct. The present Government are
working out, or professing to be working
out, the principles of the Reform Act—the
principles on which Lord GREY'S Government
came into power. And , where are they
now? Why, Lord GREY had a majority
of some two hundred and fifty, after
the Reform Bill was carried ; and where
is it now? Where is the bright assemblage of
gentlemen whose mirror-shining faces reflected
the glories of the Reform Bill ? All smashed
into a broken pane number one below
zero in public opinion, so far as that opi-
nion is represented by the present House
of Commons. Can all this be the result of
accident ? Surely not. Because the present
Government, and the willing Members who
have supported that Government (many it
is to be hoped for the last time), have
been told and warned that such pro-
fession and mock-perfbrinance would ulti-
mately find its level, and meet its due reward.
But, acting on the old folly that neither
Kings nor Ministers grow wise by experience,
the Reform (?) Ministers laughed the counsel
of their true friends to scorn, and have
acted on the insidious, but possibly more
pleasing, advice of their political enemies.
Now, we would not quarrel with men acting
on their own, or on the opinion of their friends,
in matters of private judgment ; but when
public men are elected to a high, trust-worthy,
and responsible position—a few men, for the ac-
knowledged benefit of many millions—Nye say
that they have no right, moral or otherwise, to
sacrifice that cause, and trust, to their own private
party, or other predilections.

Here we are in the eleventh year of the Re-
form era, and every man naturally asks what is
our position? The Tory, or turn-coat Conserva-
tive, exclaims, We are all right ! (Three cheers
for Tory-Whigs!) The Reformer bangs down
his head, and, mourning with subdued bitterness,
exclaims, We are undone! And by Whom ?
Why, by the very men who have stepped up the
glowing ladder of public opinion to blast con-
fident Reformers in their dearest hopes.
Our readers, we know, will not be surprised
at the apparent harshness of these observations
applied to men who have been honoured
with the support of Reformers hitherto,
and by none more honestly or energeti-
cally than by The Sun Newspaper. But
when we find men tripping in the last
stage of their political existence, by foolishly
and obstinately opposing a question of justice,—
a question FOUR TIMES acknowledged by the
Commons to be due to poor people, and yet
being conceded last night by the organ of the

Government, because he knew, and expressed his
belief, that, he would be defeated; he allowed it to
pass that stage, in order that he might beable, by
intrigue, to perpetrate his wrong to-night—we
ask, is such conduct worthy of a Liberal Minis-
try ? If it be, The Sun shall support such Ministry
no longer. If the perverse obstinacy of one man is
to rule and commit the Cabinet, let the Cabinet
take the consequence. We care not for the
Cabinet collectively, though we respect several
individual exceptions, and we only wish that
they had more power or more heart to assert
the great principles on which their political
power is at present founded.
Our cause—our party, is essentially that of the
people—we are in the same boat with them, and
we must swim or sink together. But that
time will be doomsday ! Men are not to be
eternally the cat'..--daws of ethers merely because
they have been once or twice duped. The more
deceived, the more determined. Men are just
the same in political as in private life—if they
forfeit character once, they forfeit it for ever.
To the admirable speeches of Sir STRATFORD
CANNING, Mr. HUME, Mr. CRESSWELL, Mr.
O'CONNELL, and other gentlemen on the discus-
sion of the Danish claims, the justice of which they
have long and uniformly supported, we have
much pleasure in directing the attention of our
readers.

As to the speech of Sergeant WILDE, it was
quite unworthy of his abilities, if not of his repu-
tation. The ghosts of many poor claimants, who
have perished while their money was lent or given
away for political purposes by former Admini-
strations, may yet meet some recreant Members
at the hustings. Let them remember that the
race is not always to the swift, nor the battle
to the strong. "We shall meet at Phillippi !"

If the Tories come into power on the principle
of maintaining monopoly, how do they mean to

govern the country ? The electors are bound to
ask themselves that question before they resolve
to vote for the Tories and monopoly. If' they
can see a reasonable prospect of quietly conduct-
ing public affairs on the principle of making laws
to plunder one another, they may venture to
vote for a Tory ; if they cannot, let them not
precipitate the country into anarchy by esta-
blishing a Ministry on an avowed principle of
injustice.
Since the Reform Act was passed, if not be-
fore, to govern by prescription was at an end,
From that time forward every institution was to
be tested by reason, and if it cannot be on this
ground defended, it is not likely to be main-
tained. Since prescription is at an end, it is
now more than ever necessary to make the
opinions of the people the chief consideration.
They are the persons to be governed, and to dis-
regard them, while Ministers and statesmen act
on what are called constitutional .maxims,
is like a builder setting about to con-
struct a house on some ancient model,
without considering the materials which are
at his command. Statesmen who defy the
opinions of the governed, like Lord STANLEY,
are manipulating chemists, who scrupulously
watch their measures, weights, and retorts, with-
out troubling themselves to investigate the nature
of the substances contained in their vessels.

It is, then, above all things necessary that the
statesman of our day should consider the opinions
of the living generation; and there is one
opinion in which all men agree. They affirm
that Government is established to promote the
good of the whole community. That is a theory
universally adopted. But the Tories are to take
the Government on the avowed principle of sub-,
stituting class legislation for the general benefit.
They are to maintain sugar duties for the plant-
ers, timber duties for the London capitalists en-
gaged in the Canada trade, and corn duties for
the benefit of the owners of rent. They are,
therefore, to establish the Government on a prin-
ciple which they, in common with all men, con-
demn, and in direct defiance of their own de-
clared opinions.
Moreover, as the opinion that government is
established to promote the general good, is just
and wise, it must every day acquire more and
more force and consistency. Daily, then, the
Ministry which is established in defiance of it,
must become weaker, and must speedily be de-
stroyed. It will not do to say that government
was practically conducted on a defiance of the
general good in former times. When prescrip-
tion came to an end, that argument ceased to
have any force. The multitude are now aware of
the object and intention of government, and to
be quietly governed they must be convinced
that the laws they are required to obey are for
their own good, as well as the good of the law-
makers.

The practical question then is, do the Tories
expect, or can they hope, that all the manfuc-
turers, that all the artizans, that the great body
of consumers will obey a law to enrich sugar
planters, by taxing them ? Can they rationally
expect that the multitude will put up with short
commons and deficient employment, with
poverty and starvation, to swell the rent rolls of
law-making landlords? These are such manifest
violations of the general principle on which go-
vernment is founded, that it is unreasonable to
expect that men will obey such laws. Their
sense of justice, their hatred of lies, their want
of food,—moral rectitude and self-preservation,
the strongest sentiments, and the strongest pas-
sions, will urge them to resist such laws•
To establish a Ministry, then, on the principle
of supporting monopoly is a sure way to bring
government into peril, and introduce anarchy
into society. To us it seems a fearful experi-
ment to attempt to establish a Ministry in oppo-
sition to the general principle of all govern-
ment, and in opposition to justice, inviting and
directing against it the strongest passions of the
great multitude of the governed.
We know it is said that the landlords and the
parsons, and those they can dupe, are in favour
of their injustice, and zealously support this class
legislation; that they constitute a large and en-
lightened body of the nation, and that by their
support a Government founded on monopoly
may be maintained. Do not believe it. In
1834 the landlords them Selves required their
class, legislation to be altered. Another such
year as 1834 will come with the first abundant
harvest, and the classes on whose support the
monopoly depends, will then fall out, and the
Government and the country will be a prey to
anarchy.

What a lesson, too, does this Tory system
read the multitude. It says, that by legis-
ption men may enrich themselves, and it
tells them to acquire legislative power as
a means of engrossing wealth. It is a
direct bounty on revolution. The Chartists
have learnt the lesson of the Tories. They
imitate the Peers. They want to get
hold of the power of law-making, that they
may tax other people to support them. That is
the abominable precept the Tories teach, that is
the abominable example they set, and both are
followed. They are the very essence of plunder
and anarchy, and in the ensuing election all who
wish to give complete ascendancy to plunder
in order to bring about confusion, will vote for a
Tory. Some cunning and unprincipled men sup-
port the Tories because they know that to install
them in office is to ensure the destruction of go-
vernment and the dominion of anarchy.

Mr. HINDLEV last night gave notice that he
would, on Friday, on the Order of the Day for
going into a Committee of Supply, call the atten_
tion of the House to the injustice done to the
lower and middle classes of society by the exist-
ing system of taxation, and especially by the pre-
sent Corn-laws. The Tories may, therefore, be

unable to escape the discussion they dread. on
the bread-tax. Mr. VILLIERS, to whom the sub-
ject properly belonns, could not perhaps bring it
f,irward, because, as lie said in tire House, the
Ministers had taken the task out of his hands.
We uudeNtood that to imply that he had at the