The Sun.
London, England, 1841-01-28 00:00:00

entitled
THE TOWER OF LONDON.

The Tableaax Vivans, splendid Costume, and Appointments,
from the Designs of the celebrated George Cruikshanks.
After which will be repeated the Grand Traditionary Pantomime,
entitled
HARLEQUIN AND MY LADY LEE ; OR, GOOSEY
GANDER AND THE SPELL-BOUND GOSLINGS.
En which the astonishing and incredible evolutions of the Cask
Vaulter will be given, as well as Brunning's Grand Dioramic
Synopsis of Syria ; the Pantomimic Characters by the unri-
valled Boleno Family; Mr. Southby, the Original Clo.vn ;
Miss Sharpe, Columbine ; and the astonishing Gymnastique,
Signior Felix Carlo, from Franeonrs, at Paris.

HIGH WATER AT LONDON BRIDGE THIS DAY.
Mcrning...... 5 mikutes after 5 I Evening 21 minutes after 5.

LONDON:
THURSDAY, JANUARY 28, 1841.

The Lords met at Oneo'Cluck to carry up the
Address. Lord ARDEN and the Bishop of CHI-
CHESTER took their seats.

The Commons met at the usual hour. Colonel
BRUEN took his seat.

grant to M. aynooth, for
Petitions against the
the abolition of Church-rates, and for redress for
SARAH YOUNG, and fur the suppression of idola-
trous worship in InO.ia, were presented by Mr.
PHILLIPS, Mr. EA Capt. PECIIELL, and
Sir R. INGLIS.
A new writ was, issued for Reigate.
Notices were given by Sir E. SUGDEN of a
Bill, ou Tuesde y, to amend the administration of
justice in the }louse of Lords and Privy Council;
by Lord ASHLEY to reappoint, this day, the Fac-
tories' Committee ; and by Lord J. RUSSELL for
a Committee, on Monday, to inquire into the
state of South Australia.
On the Report of the Address being brought
up, Sir R. 'Notts adverted to the omission from
the Speech and from the debates of all notice of
the repeal agitation in Ireland, which the Hon.
Baronet regarded as worse than the omission of
France. Lord J. RUSSELL laughed at the Baro-
net's ingie and his fears, and implied that it
would be giving the repeal agitation a great deal
too much importance to mention it in the Royal
Speech.

The Report of the Address was adopted with
out further discussion.

On mos:lng the Sessional Order; and on the third
relating to the ,COMMittee 0 Petitions,lLord
STANLEY suggested that petitions containing mat-
ters reflecting on individuals should not be
published till after the Report of the Committee.
Spveral Members spoke Oil this suggestion, and
an agreed that libellous petitions were
requently presented to the House, with a view
o have them printed. In general, it seemed to
b. agreed that every Member should use his
irtvn discretion about 'moving for the printing
of petitions, and the usual Sessional Order was
pasted without alteration.
'** should apprehend that in the
, Ittar eye of the
the sending a libellous petition to the House
of tOinmons was equivahent to a publical ion,
and we Cannot see what useful privilege would be
violated, by making the parties who send such
petitions, whether printed. or not, responsible to

the law for their contents. Why should, the y
House of Commons throw its shield over a
slanderer ? If individuals were as liable to prose-
cution fin• publishing libels in that mode as pub-
lishing them in any other, they would soon be
cautious, and the House of Commons would not
be insulted by being made the instrument for
disseminating libels on private character.
Mr. BROTHERTON moved his usual resolution,
that no new business, objected to by five Mem-
bers, should be brought on after twelve o'clock.
Mr. EWART and Mr. O'CONNELL supported
the motion. Lord JOHN RUSSELL opposed it.
Mr. HUME suggested that no debate should be
adjourned more than one day. On a division,
Mr. BROTHERTON'S motion was lost by 130 to
31. We can believe that such an order might
be at times an inconvenience, but the public will
expect that laws should not be made when ho-
nest men are asleep.
Mr. EWART supplied the public with another
example of the. purity of those who are to make
all others pure, by pointing out that Members
who had local interests were placed on all Com-
mittees on private Bills, so that the Committees
were divided into partizans, and contests were
prolonged greatly to the injury of the petition-
ing parties. If the Committees were properly
constituted, it is the opinion of a skilful Parlia-
mentary agent, a bad cause would be frequently
dropped. To remedy the evil, Mr. EWART pro-
posed that the Committee of Selection should
choose the Members of Committees amongst
those Gentlemen who were personally and lo-
cally the least interested.
Sir G. GREY, Mr. LABOUCHERE, and others,
hoped the Hon. Member would not press his mo-
tion to a division, and would wait to see the re-
sult of an improvement already made.

Mr. GouLuunN denied that Committees were
purely judicial tribunals, and advocated the prin-
ciple of composing them of Members locally
interested.

Mr. AGLIONBY, Mr. WARBURTON, Mr. HUME,
and others, supported the motion, which, on a
division, was lost by 22 to 24, and the Commit-
tees are to be composed, as heretofore, of local
jobbers.

Mr. Sergeant TALFOURD moved for leave to
bring in a Bill to amend the law of Copyright;
but Mr. WARBURTON strenuously opposing the
motion, the Hon. and Learned Gentleman post-
poned it to Friday.
Mr. HODGES obtained leave to bring in a Bill
for the better regulation of the Constabulary in
England and Wales.
At Eight o'Clock the House adjourned.

There was one very remarkable, and for us ex-
tremely pleasant, feature manifested in the debate
on Tuesday evening to which we must call public
attention. Lord BROUGHAM spoke of the French
being "jealous of honour, sudden and quick in
quarrel," prone to take offence, and he made
their disposition a ground for framing and adapt-
ing to it the policy of England. Viscount MEL-
BOURNE alluded also to their sensitiveness, and
no doubt regarded it as a reason for caution,
though he said it was not to dictate the policy of
other nations. The Duke of WELLINGTON pro-
fessed the greatest respect for France, and de-
clared that he had done more than any man to
sustain her honour and integrity, and keep her
in her place in the councils of Europe. That
Mr. GROTE and Mr. HUME should refer
to the feelings of the French as an ele-
ment worthy of consideration in our na-
tional policy, is not to be wondered at ;
but they professed not a greater deference to
those feelings than Sir ROBERT PEEL, whose
chief cause for blaming the Ministers was, that
they had not sufficiently considered nor con-
sulted the feelings of the French. Now, this al-
most universal deference in Parliament to the
feelings of a foreign nation, as an important
element -in national policy, strikes us as some-
thing novel, and certainly it is for us something
very pleasing.
But if so much deference is to be paid to the
feelings of the Frencli,—if their sensitiveness to
insult, their love of honour, their spirit of inde-
pendence are to be so much attended to,—if
Tory statesmen profess that, why are the feel-
ings of the people of England and Ire-
land to be set at nought and outraged
by Tory statesmen, as if they were so
many dogs ? Their policy proceeds on the prin-
ciple of disregarding the feelings of our people,
and of coercing them into submission. They
profess not to take them into account. They
will not assil the Grand Turk against a vassal
without the greatest precaution, lest the feelings
of the French be hurt ; but they will exclude
millions from the franchise in England and Ire-
land, and vex those they admit to it by new re-
gistration laws, in open and avowed defiance of
the feelings of the people of England and
Ireland. Abroad they consult the feelings of the
people in their policy; at home they despise
them, and claim great credit to themselves for
magnanimity in doing so.

What is the source of this difference ? Is it
that our statesmen regard the French as a nation
on an equality with them, which they know they
cannot and dare not outrage with impunity,
while they regard the people of England and
Ireland as servants, or slaves, whom they
may treat in any manner which suits their pur-
poses or their policy? We know no other solution
of the difficulty. And hence your Sir ROBERT
INGLISES, your Lord STANLEYS, and the whole
rabble of ultra-Protestant, and ultra-coercive le-
gislators, pursue their own peculiar policy, ut-
terly regardless of the feelings of the Irish
Catholics, the English Dissenters, and the great
bulk of the working classes. Indignant remon-
strances, or humble petitions, alike go for nothing,
because the religious and political tyrants of the
people, enshrouded in a kind of prescriptive sanc-
tity, know, or fancy, that the irritated multitude
will not strike at them, while they do know thr t the
French, having no respect for them, will take no
insult at their hands, and will pay injury with in-
jury, and outrage with :outrage. Me gentlemen
who rely on the forbearance of the people to
make in security the iniquitous laws which serve
their own narrow and selfish party purposes,
seem, then, to be cowardly as well as tyrannical,
and only strike, and only plunder, where they feel
confident they will meet with no resistance.
Marking these things, we are not surprised
that Mr. O'CONNELL—though we do not approve
of his policy—should stir up his countrymen to
agitate for a repeal of the Union, that they may,
like the French, have an independent national
existence, be treated on an equality, and be
saved from the insults and the injuries which
are now heaped on them by Protestant legis-
lators in the name of religion, and by despotic
politicians in the name of the public welfare.
Neither are we surprised that the working classes
or the Chartists require a Parliament of their
own. If they cannot be protected from a wrong
by an independent national existence, with
which to confront airsiisitoncoralcoyn,g
longer
it r
toseemsb
e
snuba-
tural that they should tiie
wish
-
ject to injuries • and insults dressed up in the so-
lemn garb of legislation. •
Such a discrepancy strengthens the lesson
which similar events have long impressed on the
1
people. Those who submit to injury • will
it will have their rights respected • If the
always he trampled on; those who repel
Irish mean to enforce on the Protestant ma-
jority of the House of Commons a respect for
their rights, and mean to scare my Lord STAN-
LEY, MY. EMERSON TENNENT, and Co. from in-
flicting a wrong on them by means of an insi-
dious enactment, they must use strong lan-
guage, and give them to understand that the
Irish are no more to be insulted' a. d injured for
the sake of a Protestant policy than the French
for the sake of a Turkish policy. he working
classes or Chartists desire to make the bread-
taxing aristocracy abstain from plundering them,
they must convince the aristocracy that their
feelings and their rights must be respected like
...----/

4'!:•"".*
•4 . . ,-, (...4,
4 '. 1 * '''..e
* ,‘%•• .4 silor-I-N..;,,4?,-2----- 4•‘.-IL=t--0.04%;, - , ~, 40
• ~1. ' . 4 ,,,'
Ilirielr
•-ni.44.,_,,.... • - , ,s.
-•:- --.?,..r.k,-- 10•
—Arr. 't , NO, ~ • - ~ , r- ,
~,..
A-5 V....., cii .- -'"' '' _lfili,.• 1,..

The, ft.. 44. 44,
.1.14 f 4-V