The Sun.
London, England, 1840-02-04 00:00:00

LONDON :
TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 4, Is4l.

In the House of Lords last night, the Naturaliza-
tion Bill of Prince Albert went through a Committee.
It was, however, only by sacrificing those parts of the
Bill to which the Duke of WELLINGTON objected,
that it encountered no opposition. The Standing Or-
ders were suspended, and the Bill was read a third
time, and sent to the Commons.

Lord BROUGHAM, in presenting a petition from certain
inhabitants of the metropolis, for the remission of
FROST'S sentence, which he said excited unexampled
interest, took occasion to enter at considerable length
into the judicial proceedings. His Lordship gave the
Commons a hint, by saying, that they would look in
vain to preserve respect for the laws, if their Lordships
ceased to make men respect the organs of the law. At
the same time, the Noble Lord said that he had in the
whole course of his professional experience never known
a stronger case for a complete acquittal made out. His
Lordship's speech is worthy of perusal.
The Marquis of NORMANBY explained, as we have
already informed the public, what was the decision of
the Judges, adding that the result was that the convic-
tion was right. He also stated that the two Judges at
Monmouth, who formed the majority on the Commis-
sion, considered themselves bound by the majority of
all the Judges. It was the differences of opinion
amoogst the Judges which made the Ministers resolve
not to carry the extreme penalty of the law into effect,
but they all agreed that never were lives more justly
forfeited to the laws of the country.
After some further conversation, in which the LORD
CHANCELLOR said it was of no use reserving a point,
unless the opinion of a majority of the Judges were to
prevail, the petitions were laid on the table.

. -
The Bishop of ExrrEk's motion concerning Social-
ism was postponed till to-morrow, to enable his brethren
Of CANTERBURY and LONDON to assist at the slaugh-
ter. The Duke of WELLINGTON announced that he
advised prosecutions of the Socialists when they violated
the law ; and the Marquis of NORMANBY said he had
recommended gentlemen to keep their servants away
from the Socialists.

Lord COLCHESTER withdrew his motion for papers
concerning the occupation of Minorca by the French.
At a quarter past Seven the House adjourned.
Among many petitions presented to the Commons
was one from 599 members of the Bar, expressing their
alarm at hearing of the commitment of the Sheriffs; and
one by Mr. LEADER, from certain inhabitants of London,
for the remission of FROST'S sentence. As Election Com-
mittees are to be ballotted for, several Members asked
for and obtained temporary leave of absence.
The SPEAKER, by warrant, appointed Messrs. GREEN,
MIL NKS, O'CONNOR DON, °ROE, STRUTT, and
YOUNG, as the General Committee for the trial of
Disputed Elections.
The ATTORNEY-GENZRAL, after some little objec-
tion, obtained a present and temporary exemption from
sitting on Election Committees. The Ministers were
excused on account of their duties.
The Naturalization Bill for Prince ALBERT was
brought down from the Lords, and read a first and
second time.

Notices were gi%en of motions by Lord ASHLEY, for
an Address to remove Mr. FAIR from his office of
Registrar of Birmingham ; by Mr. BAINES, of a Bill
respecting First Fruits ; by Mr. LIDDELL, for a copy
of the warrant pensioning Sir JOHN NEWPORT ; by
Mr. EWART, of a Bill for equalizing the Sugar Duties ;
by Mr. GonsoN, after some conversation, for papers
from the Home-office respecting Mr. FuosT's respite ;
by Lord JOHN RUSSELL, that the House, at its rising
on Friday, do adjourn till Tuesday.
The SPEAKER brought the case of Mr. HOWARD
under the notice of the House, and the messenger who
had received the warrant to arrest him informed the
House that he had beers unable to find him. Mr.
HOWARD, it is plain, sets the House at defiance, for his
son said he would be in town whenever this business was
over. After some conversation as to what the House
should do in this perplexing dilemma, it did nothing, be-
caw-0 the evidence that Mr. HOWARD purposely evaded
the warrant was not completed, Mr. `VALLEY informed
the House that in coming to it he, as Coroner, had re-
ceived an order to attach the property of the Sheriffs,
which was served on him by one of the HOWARDS.
In a Committee on Prince ALBERT'S Annuity Bill
Lord JOHN RUSSELL denied that his Court had
been named ; and Colonel SIBTHORP brought
forward his motion, to make the annuity to the Prince
terminable on the life of her MAJESTY, if the Prince
did not reside in England, or should marry a non-
Protestant.
Sir ROBERT PEEL could not support his Gallant
Friend on that point, though he had supported him on
reduction, and expressed himself quite unwilling to
throw any doubt on the Protestant faith of the Prince.
Lord JOHN RUSSELL did not need to oppose the
Gallant Colonel, as he was opposed by his own leader ;
and the Gallant Colonel, who was most courteously
treated, in consequence probably of his recent victory,
withdrew his motion. . .

...........
The Bill went through the Committee without oppo-

sition.

In a Committee of Supply, a vote of 2,000,0001.
was taken, and ordered to be reported to-morrow.
After some conversation, in which Sir M. Wool)
stated that the only improvemeuts contemplated at pre-

sent in the metropolis were a line of street from Oxford-
street through St.: Giles's, frc m Coventry-street
through Leicester-square, and a third in the neighbour-
hood of Whitechapel, the Committee on Metropolitan
Improvements was re-appointed.
Another discussion then took place on the privilege
question, on which, by the introduction of fresh speak-
ers, namely, Sir WILLIAM FOLLETT and the SOLICITOR-
GENERAL, the whole subject was again re-opened and
talked about in all its bearings. Mr. DARBY moved
that the Sheriffs be discharged from custody.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL opposed the motion. with
great reluctance, as the Sheriffs had not yet shown any
contrition.

Sir R. INGLIS supported the motion.
Mr. BAINES opposed it, and mentioned that the
CHIEF JUSTICE had himself, on Saturday, disseminated
those publications for which the House of Commons
was prosecuted by STOCEDALE ; and he wanted to know
why the CHIEF JUSTICE should not be prosecuted?
Sir WILLIAM FOLLETT in a long and able speech
recommended that Lord JOHN RUSSELL should origi-
nate the measure, but if he were forced to vote, he
should vote for the motion.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL, in a still abler speech
opposed the motion, and entered into the whole sub-
ject, which becomes the more obscure, the more it is
discussed by the new facts and principles brought
forward from every different age, and of the value of
which each speaker forms a different opinion. After some
months' discussion, and several more instances of con-
tumacy, we may expect to find that the Gordian knot
will be so involved, that the sword only can cut it. .

After a short speech from Sir EDWARD SUGDEN, the
debate was adjourned.
The Irish Corporation Bill was brought in and read
a first time.

The House then adjourned.

In the course of Sir ROBERT PEEL'S able and
eloquent speech—for able and eloquent we fully
admit it to be, however deficient we find it in
truth, honesty, and sincerity, in comprehensive
views, and in all that distinguishes a great man
from a clever actor—in his much-praised and already
far renowned speech, he used one word to which we
earnestly beg his own attention, if he can conde-
scend to look at our humble pages—and the atten-
tion of all his friends and followers, particularly
the bigoted and ultra-Protestant and ultra-Coer-
cionists, amongst them. He said that Catholic
Emancipation was INEVITABLE. Inevitable, that
was the word. It teems with instruction. In his
mouth, clothed with his authority, it becomes a
most important lesson. It is a whole volume com-
pressed into five syllables. It is like one of those
profound algebraic formula, which contain in a few
simple signs the discoveries, the hoarded wisdom,
of many ages.

When Sir ROBERT PEEL found Catholic Eman-
cipation inevitable, he was the second man in the
Government. The undiminished Church of Ire-
land, and the whole Church of England, was with
him. An unreformed Parliament contained an
overwhelming majority of the Tories, obedient to
the commands of the Church and the Aristocracy.
The majority of the Peers were against Catholic
Emancipation. The press, not perfectly free now,
was then under much restraint, and was much less
powerful than at present. The Ministry was Tory,
making it a boast to uphold the Church. The
KING was Tory to the back-bone, and hostile to
Catholic Emancipation. The Peers were Tory—
the Commons were a mere reflection of the Peers
—the whole organized power of the State was Tory,
and yet we learn from Sir R. PEEL that Catholic
Emancipation was inevitable. Here is a great
truth. The whole organized power of the State
was unable to carry its will into effect, and King,
Lords, Commons, and Church were compelled to
yield. There is, therefore, in truth and justice, a
power superior to the whole organized power of the
State.

But almost in the same breath in which Sir R.
PEEL admitted that Catholic Emancipation was
inevitable, he went on to boast that he had taken
securities for the Protestant Church. Is Sir R.
PEEL ignorant of the meaning of words ? How
could he, or how could the whole State impose
conditions on that which imposed its own con-
ditions on him and it ? Foolish man, he talked of
giving laws to that which gave laws to him. He
ought to know that the Inevitable, like death, pre-
scribes its own conditions, and that man and States
have only to submit to the decrees. If, therefore,
Emancipation were inevitable, what puerile folly,
what irritating nonsense, are those paltry restrictions
he imposed on the Catholics, which serve, at least,
perpetually to remind them of the work which yet
remains for them to achieve, before they are placed
on a level with the rest of their countrymen.
Let us ask Sir R. PEEL, also, and all the coer-
cionists, not excluding mans of the Whigs, is there
nothing else which is or will be inevitable, nothing
else in all the demands of men which the State,
with all its means, and it was much more powerful
in 1829 than in 1840, must concede ? Does the
aristocracy, which could not keep the Catholics out
of the constitution, expect to keep out the working
classes ? Can Sir R. PEEL, though aided by
Lord J. RUSSELL, and all the Tories and Whigs
united, dream that the admission of the working
classes into the pale of the Constitution is not as
inevitable as the admission of the Catholics ? When
the State could not maintain its own exclusion
against eight millions of Catholics on religious
grounds, can it hope to maintain its exclusion of
twenty millions of the unenfranchised on political
grounds ? Impossible. W hen Sir R. PEEL told
the world that Catholic Emancipation had become
inevitable, he revealed to society the existence of a
power infinitely great compared to what is commonly
understood by the term State, and the commands of
which it behoves him to stud• and submit to. The
word inevitable reads to statesmen of all parties a
most important lesson, which they ought to ponder
seriously and continually.
But they seem never to think of anything but
themselves, their retainers, and followers, till this in-
evitable power makes itself felt, and then they scram-
ble who shall soonest submit to it. Theylive so much
in Parliament that they see nothing beyond it and
the statutes it makes. They are so exclusively
taken from, and mingle with the aristocracy, that
they live exclusively for it. They look only to
Parliament—they act only for the aristocracy.
They are not ashamed to say, like Sir ROBERT
PEEL, that they are the exclusive friends of the
aristocracy and the opponents of the democracy.
Their laws are made to coerce, or to subdue the
lower classes. But now the democracy is roused,
though its eyes are not yet wide open. It only heaves
and moves, and already its opponents tremble.
They are terrified. What will be the result when it
rises, and stirs, and when all its mighty strength is put
forth—when it has found, for assuredly it will find
appropriate and skilful leaders, and is organised for
the attainment of its ends, we need not predict. If
its first bearings are so alarming, what will it be
when it walks forth in all the vehemence of irritated
?ower ? Inevitable will then be its non rule, and
in time Sir ROBERT PEEL will have taught his
friends to apply the proper word to the decrees of
its will.

Before the debate on Sir JOIIN YA RDE BUL•
LEtt's motion came on, the Tory Journals were
quite confident of victory, and one Weekly Journal
went so far as to announce by placards that its next
number would contain " The division and probable
impeachment of the Ministry, should they refuse to
resign." The telling of noses which usually takes
place on the announcement of such a contest con-
vinced the Tories of their error, and then they began
to seek consolation for anticipated defeat in the
great moral advantages their cause would derive from
the debate. The debate is at an end, the division
is told, the contest of the two parties is decided in
favour of the Whigs, and now the Tories claim all
the honours of superior arguments and superior
eloquence; and those who voted to place themselves
in office boast of a victory because the majority
against them is made up of those who voted to keep
themselves in. If the possessors of office should be
struck off, the expectants should share the same
fate. The appreciation of the results of the
contest by the Tories, is as erroneous as
were their anticipations ; and all the fine
writing of the Times, the Standard, the Ikrald
and the Past will neither lessen the disgrace, nor
retrieve the injury which the debate has inflicted
on the hypocrites.
ch, from
a littleO ther
r aHouseirritation
o fiNlmr
eAr,C AcaUuLs
caused
Sy stpheee
unseem-
ly interruptions, at the commencement of his speech,
of a few wine-warmed individuals of the Tory
party, made a comparatively feeble impression ;
but on the country, which will find in the report
only the matter, divested of the manner, it has
already taken a firm hold. That is the speech
which the provincial journals quote, and praise
the most.

" Never," says the Liverpool Albion, to quote one ex-
ample, " was there a more sp
kilo id speech heard within

the walls of the House of Commons than the one deli-
vered by Mr. Macaulay on Wednesday : it was both elo-
quent and argumentative in the highest degree. One
of the happiest efforts in this brilliant effusion was
the exposure of the disloyalty of the present race
of Tories; but that has been so generally quoted
by our brethren of the press, that we must cull
a flower or two from other portions of it."
It accordingly quotes, at great length, the picture
which Mr. 'VI ACAULAY drew of the impossibility
of Sir ROBERT resuming the reins of Government,
the description which he gave of Ireland, and the
concluding passage of his speech, which was ad-
mirable for its deep tone of feeling, and the beauti
fully conceived compliment Mr. MACAULAY paid
to Lord JOHN RUSSELL. In the estimate which
the Tories have made of the influence of Mr. MA-
CAULAY'S speech they have committed one capital
error. The House of Commons is not the empire,
and though the wine-warmed friends of the Times
in that House might attempt to drown the Right
Hon. Member's voice by their yells, they could not
prevent his noble oration from going abroad and
carrying confusion into the Tory host.
If we were to admit all the claims to superiority
which the Tory Journals make for Tory orators, we
hould still be able to prove that the moral advan-
tage of this great conflict of tongues is wholly on
the side of the Ministers. It was avowed on the
part of the Tories, that the motion was intended to
enable them to take the Government ; but not one
of them, when taunted with the divisions amongst
their own followers, showed that they had any rea-
sonable prospect of being able to carry it on. The
party of which Sir R. PEEL, Lord STANLEY, and
Sir JAMES GRAHAM are the spokesmen, have
continually agitated the country for the last three
years in opposition to the Catholics, and one and
all of these Statesmen declared that they would
carry the Catholic Emancipation Act honestly into
execution. Such a declaration separates them
completely from the great majority of their fol-
lowers, and absolutely leaves them without a party
in the country. The bulk of the Anglican Priest-
hood, the majority of the Tory Journals, have been
conspiring against the Catholics, and in that rascally
conspiracy the Tory leaders declared they will
take no part. They endeavoured, therefore, to get
hold of the Government, while they were conscious
that they had no party to carry it on. They would
have inflicted on the country all the mischief of a
change in the Administration, all the trouble and
hazard of a general election, and all the certain
disasters of another speedy change in the Adminis-
tration, for the mere gratification of their personal
vanity or personal spleen. To have had that fact
made apparent by the avowals of the Tories, is a
great moral advantage to the Whigs.
At the same time that the Tory leaders avowed
that their object was to seize the Government,
they also avowed, that, failing to seize it, they
meant to watch its proceedings and impede and
obstruct it at every step. To what end ? The
objects which the Ministers propose are the gradual
improvement of our institutions, the contentment of
the people, the security of property, and the promo-
tion of general prosperity, and the attainment of
these objects is to be continually thwarted and im-
peded by the Tories. Apart from the Tories being
out of office, which is the basis of all their com-
plaints, what else can they complain of ?
Some of the Ministers wish to promote a modi-
fication or repeal of the Corn-laws, and, therefore,
says the Times (which we had the pleasure about
three months ago of numbering amongst our
allies on this question), they are to make way
for the Tories, all of whom are staunch
advocates of the Landlords'-tax. Honest Times,
which pretends to advocate the cause of jus-
tice and the poor, and vet fights to place the
Tories in power, and give perpetuity to the bread-
tax ! Some of the Ministers also wish to extend
the franchise or facilitate its acquisition, and so em-
brace a larger number of the population within the
Constitution ; and this the Tories are hotly to op-
pose as an injury to themselves. Like the Orange-
men of Ireland, they complain of being oppressed
the instant any restraint is put on their power of
oppressing others.
The Ministers are also criminal in the eyes of
the Tories for wishing to secure perfect freedom to
all religious sects, and make the National Church
somewhat more useful and less oppressive to those
who do not belong to it. Such are their principal
offences, according to the Tory bill of indictment,
and it will much redound to their advantage
and their honour that the Tories avow that on
these grounds they are to thwart, impede, and ob-
struct the QUEEN'S Government. Faction never
displayed itself in stronger and more disgusting
colours. The Tories avow a hatred of free trade,
a hatred of civil and religious freedom, a hatred of
the bulk of the people; and the nation must have lost
all its ancient attachment to liberty, if such a scan-
dalous avowal does not greatly recommend to the
public support the Ministry which the Tories are
to impede, thwart, and obstruct. If the advantages
of mere oratory be on the side of the Tories, which,
however, we deny, the advantages of sound, rational,
and liberal views are all on the side of the Minis-
ters. The debate has made that manifest, and
eonvicted the Tories of being as ignorant and in-
efficient as they are arrogant and hypocritical.

One
of the most remarkable circumstances in the
contest which is going on between the two parties
in the Church of Scotland is, that the People seem
to range themselves against the party who profess
to be most friendly to their rights. This is not to
be accounted for on any other principle than a con-
viction in the popular mind that the views of the
vetoists, could they be realize!, would confer no
benefit on the community. It is clearly perceived,
that while the clergy pretend to give to the pa-
rishioners, by means of the Veto Act, the power of
selecting a Minister for themselves, their real in-
tention is to get that power into their own hands.
They do not, of course, put forward any such
ambitious claims in a direct and open manner. That
would not be consistent with their tactics. Their
policy is to mask the object they aim at, in order
the more effectually to secure it. They bawl out
non-intrusion " with all their might, declaim with
all their powers of lungs against the sinfulness and
horrid oppression of forcing a Minister upon a con-
gregation who cannot he edified by his ministra-
tions, and protest that they will risk every thing, yea,
even their stipends, rather than that the people
should not enjoy a privilege so important to their
spiritual interests.
When, however, the matter comes to be probed
to the bottom, it is discovered that " the people "
are not the general inhabitants of the parish, as
might be supposed, hut certain elect persons possess.
ing the compound qualification of belonging to the
masculine gender, of holding tli station of heads
of families, and of being communicants or partakers
of the Holy Sacrament—a qualification so difficult
of attainment, that the parish of Daviot, in Inver-
nesshire,lwhere the veto was acted upon a few
months ago, contains just seven such persons, four
of whom, being the majority, rejected the patron's
presentee without assigning any reason.
It is also discovered that the clergy have, by law,
the right of preventing persons from being commu-
nicants, that they often exercise this right, and
therefore have the power of limiting the number
of " the people," in whom they would vest
the exercise of the veto. It is, further, a well
known fact that if, from indecision, want of harmony
among " the people," or any other cause, a
vacancy is not filled up within six months after it
has been formally declared, the right of presentation
devolves by law upon the Presbytery of the bounds
in which the vacant parish is situated.
Of all these things the people of Scotland are
well aware. They see the real working of the ma-
chine which the veto-loving Clergy have constructed ;
they see in it only the extension of ecclesiastical
power, the never-ceasing object of the ministers of
all state-supported systems of religion, and there-
fore it is that they oppose its introduction into the
Kirk. As an evidence of the existence of this feel-
ing we may instance a Resolution pasted at a
public meeting of the inhabitants of Dumfries and
Maxwelltown, lately held in the church of the latter '
place for the purpose of hearing the case of the
vetoists stated by a deputation from the Commis-
sion of the General Assembly. The tables, it ap-
pearE, were completely turned upon the Reverend
Deputation and their partizans. This meeting
resolved—

" That the clergymen comprising the deputaticn
from the General Assembly be instructed to state to those
who sent them, that it is the opinion of the inhabitants of
Dumfries and Maxwelltown, in public meeting assembled,
that the Church of Scotland being established by Act of
Parliament,
is incumbent upon Church Courts to give effect to the de_
and partly endowed out of the public taxes, it
cisions of the Court of Session and House of Lords; but
that, if the Assembly will dissolve the Church connection
with the State, and renounce the portion of public taxes
annually paid out of the public treasury to members of the