The Sun.
London, England, 1841-06-03 00:00:00

:11Jtie ffiAlta.t,

LONDON:
THURSDAY, JUNE 3, 1841.

The Commons met last night after the Whitsun holi-
days. In the course of the evening two petitions were
presented complaining of bribery at the Nottingham
election.
Mr. T. DUNCOMII£ complained of the Clerk of the
Peace of H?rtforch-hire not having furnished the copy of
the register of' the electors which had been ordered by
the House. Instead of complying with the order he had
sent a lett stzting that it would take three weeks to
copy the register, and asking at whose expense it was to
be done. In the course of :he conversation which ensued, it
was genei ally tf2;reed that the clerk of the peace was bound
to attend to such orders, and that the Magistrates of the
county must pay the expmse nut ot' the county rates.
Th! clerk was orlered to att.cal at the :Bar on next
Monday, unless the oily was-in the meantime sent in.
The adjourned debate on the No-Confidence motion
us resumed by Mr. Sergeant 'I'ALFOURD. He charm:-
-teristd Sir JAMES G RAHAM'S invective against his former
_friends as unparalleled in party warfare. Sir JAMES he
:11e6"ibe,1 55 nOW surrounded by those, casting a longing
look - towards flake, 'whose strength he had assisted
in laying prostrate. If the Right Honourable Baronet
. succeeded in turning out the Ministers he would soon
have to ask their aid to resist hie Orange associates any
his Chartist • admirer,. • Tlle lion. and Learned Gentle-
:,man defended the Ministers for not having tuccecded in

abolishing Church-rates, praised their administration of
the affairs of Ireland, and repelled ,the taunts of the To-
ries that they bad done nothing to ameliorate the Poor-
laws, by observing that the Tories had neither done
nor promised anything. He boasted...of the Post••
office reform, which he said was all the Ministers'
own, and he added that the country was
indebted to the Whig Attorney-General for the aboli-
tion of arrest for debt. The Learned Sergeant vigorously
assailed the Tories, anti as vigorously defended his
friends, and concluded a spirited speech by assuring the
Ministers that they might safely appeal to posterity for
its judgment of their conduct.
Mr. HODGSON IILNDE considered it to be his duty to
vote for the motion of Sir ROBERT PEEL.

Mr. GILLON said he had never given a vote with
greater satisfaction than the one he should give in
favour of the Ministers, and he would fearlessly on that
vote claim the renewal of the confidence of his consti-
tuents.

Mr. J. GRATTAN rested his support of the Ministers
on the ground of their goodgovernment of Ireland.

Lord C. HAMILTON took the other side, and explained
that he should vote for Sir R. PEEL.

Sir G. STAUNTON approved of the conduct of Ministers,
particularly their foreign policy, and would oppose the
resolution:

Sir W. JAMES, without saying much, except alluding
to the use of clap-traps, at which Sir ItonEnT PEEL was
not offended, gave his support to the resolution. lie
reproached the Ministers with using the cry of cheap
broad, when they knew it meant low wages.

Mr. WALLACE retorted on Sir W. JA3IES, and car-
ried the war, which the Hon. Baronet had begun, hotly
into the Tory camp.
Mr. CU:SEWELL made a speech to reconcile himself, if
possible, to his constituents. He referred to the educa-
tion scheme of Ministers, and some other abandoned
measures, and asked why we were now to have a mea-
sure introduced by the Cabinet which the head of the
Cabinet two years ago had described as the act of a
madman.

Dr. LUSIIINGTON retrieved his vote and speech on the
Sugar Duties, by delivering an effective speech against
the Tories, and in favour of the frier Is with whom he had
acted all his life, and by declaring :hat he meant to vote
against the motion. The Right Hon, and Learned Gen-
tleman seemed to bear in mind that he had reached the.
close of his Parliamentary career, and alluded to his hope
that though he had zealously opposed a large political
party, he should not on quitting the House, leave behind
him one personal enemy.
Sir W. FoLLETT made a clever speech for hiS party.
He referred to the agitation which he said Ministers
were endeavouring to get up, but he said that they had
much overrated their power. He contrasted the conduct
of Sir R. PEEL, when in office in 1835, with the conduct
of the Ministers, and gave much praise to Sir ROBERT
PEEL. Sir WILLIAM FOLLETT'S speech was long and
elaborate.

Sir G. GREY replied to Sir W. FoLLETT, but the
Right Hon. Gentleman was evidently labouring under a
violent hoarseness and cold, which deprived him of his
voice. His speech, therefore, was only partially heard,
and seemed not to be nearly so effective as his speech on
the Sugar Duties. Sir GEORGE. dwelt on the fact, that
Sir ROBERT PEEL had not informed the Honse on what
principles he proposed to take office. , -
_Mr. HANDLEY wound up the debate fOr the evening in
a speech lull of blow's, every one Of Which told heavily
on the Tories.suiprised his friends probably by the
steady support he gave them 4- but •he surprised -them
still more by the severe manner in which he retorted on
Sir J. GRAHAM, and exposed Sir R. PEEL. The consis-
tency of the former, and the candour of the latter, were
shattered to pieces under the sarcastic blows of the
" heavy Lincolnshire agriculturist." Sir JAMES GRAHAM
was neatly demonstrated by his own words to
be a traitor, and Sir ROBERT as neatly con-
victed of intending to deceive the agriculturists, and
of being unworthy of their confidence. If he were to
be turned, he said, out of Lincolnshire for the vote he
meant to give, he should lose his seat because he was
true to his principle; but Sir J. GRAHAM hadbeen kicked
out of Cumberland because he was false to his. Quoting
a speech of Sir JAMES GRAHAM'S at Carlisle, in which
he described the Tories, with whom he was now sitting •
and voting, as men utterly unworthy of confidence and
the enemies of liberty, Mr. HANDLEY said he should
follow its doctrine, which was that he would act
basely if he deserted the friends with whom
he had acted all his life and united himself
to a party with whom he accidentally agreed on
one point. What would. Sir R. PEEL think of him if he
were to set himself down a Tory for the rest of his life ?
Would he not despise him ?—though that was a question
he might not like to answer with Lord STANLEY and
Sir JAMES GRAHAM sitting beside him. Of Sir H.
PEEL'S speech on the Corn-laws last year, to
which the Right. Hon. Baronet had referred the House
for his principles, Mr. HANDLEY declared that it was
so full of reservations (and his Tory Corn-law friends
agreed with him) that it bound the Right Hon. Baronet
to nothing. Ile had told them, however, in words of
ominous import, that the prosperity of manufacturers
was a better support for agriculture than the
Corn-law. Sir R. PEEL'S skeleton of a sliding-scale with
an unmentioned pivot might mean anything, and he
wanted to know whether the Right Hon. Baronet would
maintain the present Corn-law. The Right Hon. Baronet
gave no answer, and he would not pledge himself to the
details. Mr. GLADSTONE had lately proposed a
scale which would probably be adopted by Sir
RoaEnT, and that gave the agriculturists a
less protection by Is. 4d. than the low fixed duty pro-
posed by Ministers. The Right Hon. Baronet said he
had explicitly stated his opinions on the Suffrage and the
Ballot, but he had said nothing of the Charter. Did he
mean to preserve the treaty of Nottingham, and
maintain that time-serving alliance which was no
honour to either party. We have adverted to
only a few of the very good points which Mr. HANDLEY
made. They went so deeply into Sir JAMES GRAHAM,
that we believe the Cumberland Zephyr—as Mr. HAND_
LEY called Sir JAMES—will not again assail the " heavy'
men of Lincolnshire. We may add, for the information .
of our distant readers, that both these gentlemen are
much above the ordinary dimensions, and that Mr.
HANDLEY adds to great height still greater bulk ; and
Sir JAMES, who had sneered at the heavy Lincolnshire
men, is himself both square built and portly.
The debate was adjourned at half-past twelve.
Mr. CRESSWELL afterwards wished to bring on the
Danish Claims, but the House would not allow him, and
he again postponed the subject.
After transacting some other business, the House ad-
journed at a Quarter before Two o'Clock.

The crowded state of our columns prevented us
from sooner noticing an article in the Standard of
Tuesday, written with an evident intention of de-
preciating the gallant exploits of Commodore Sir
CHARLES NAPIER during the glorious campaign
on the coast of Syria, and also with a view to em-
broil Sir CHARLES with Admiral STOPFORD and
the other officers who shared in the toils; dangers,
and successes of the expedition. We have care-
fully examined all the insinuations thrown out
against Sir CHARLES NAPIER, both by Sir RO-
BERT STOPFORD in his indiscreet speech at Malta,
and by the Tory journals, daily and weekly, here;
and we protest we never read or heard of any
more utterly frivolous—more indicative of
the passion of malice prepense in the.
individuals advancing them. It is not stated in
anypu q
teautalrattenre tt
oh a
Admiralt t Gallant
STOPFORD,IIan C t o m moodortroe i -
any
other naval commander in the Mediterranean.
It is not even whispered that Sir CHARLES in-
sinuated either at Liverpool or in London, or
elsewhere, that the plans of the Admiral were
defective, and that had others been adopted re-
sults still more glorious would have followed.
The charges against Sir CHARLES NAPIER
amount simply to this:—That in certain speeches
made by him at Liverpool, Manchester, and in
London, on his return from the Syrian- expedi-
tion, he neglected to assure an incredulous
British public (staking his reputation of course
for the correctness of the fact) that Sir R. STOP-
FORD was the greatest of all naval commanders
livinr, or dead—that DRAKE, BLAKE, mind NEL,
SON were hardly tit to be his cabin-boys. As Sir
CHARLES did not say anything of the kind, w,
presume he did not think so highly of the trans-
cendant abilities of the Admiral, and as there are
quarters in which moderate praise is regarded as
the severest censure, we think he acted with a
manly prudence in saying as little of the Admiral
as was consistent with a high respect for his per-
son and private character. With so warm an
eulogist as Captain I3oxER to sing his praises,
Admiral STOPFORD can need no second laureate.
But, in addition to insinuations calculated to
create an ill-feelingbetween Commodore NAPIER
and Admiral STOPPORD, the Standard ventures
upon a few assertions relative to the Gallant
Commodore's conduct in the course of the cam-
paign, which we cannot pass over in silence.
We take them in the order in which they occur
in the veracious Standard:—

At Sidon it is a notorious fact that the Gallant Com-
modore (no fault of his) did not enter that fortress until