The Sun.
London, England, 1840-05-27 00:00:00

LONDON:
WEDNESDAY, MAY 27, 1840.

Lord BROUGHAM was present last night in the
House of Lords, and presented several petitions ; one
against the China war, from Edinhur4b, which the Noble
Lord said he and the petitioners hoped was not to be
carried on to recover compensation for the opium seized.
Lord ELLENBOROUCH gave notice of his intention to
move for a Committee to inquire into the subject of
printed papers.

. .
The Archbishop of DUBLIN presented a petition from
certain clergymen and laymen, praying for an alteration
in the Articles and Liturgy of the Church of England.
The Most Rev. Prelate supported the prayer of the pe-
tiLion, as did the Bishops of NORWICH and LINCOLLI.
The Archbishop of CANTERBURY said the clergy did
not require an alteration. The Bisho pof LONDON ra-
cher attacked his Reverend Brother of Nonwicit and
the petitioners. IN hen his Lordship had done his speech,
and a few petitions had been presented, the House ad-
journed. A great number of Peers were present, partly,
probably, to hear the prelatical combatants, partly in
expectation, we believe, that Lord LYNDIIURST was to
talk about sulphur, but his Lordship, from an unex-
plained reason, forbore to gratify his brother Peers.
In the Commons a great number of petitions were
presented for the abolition of the Corn-laws, including
the petition from the City of London.
We must mention amongst the petitions one from the
West Riding of Yorkshire, complaining of the incarcera-
tion of Mr. FEARGUS O'CONNOR in the felons' cells of
York Castle. On this petition Mr. WAKLEY wished
to make some observations, Li it presented a case of
grievance, and to ask some questions, but was not
allowed at the time ; he afterwards gave up his in-
tention at the request of Mr. Sergeant TALFOURD,
who stated that he had received a communication from
Mr. O'CONNOR, that be was in communication with
the Under-Secretary of State, and that be proposed
taking further steps on the subject. On the motion of
Mr. AGLIONBY a copy of the York gaol regulations
was ordered to be laid on the table of the House.

Mr. HUME gave notice of a motion to open the
Museum and National Gallery on Sundays, between
one and four o'clock ; Mr. KELLY, of a motion to ad-
mit all freemen having the P aliamentary to the Muni-
cipal Franchise ; and Mr. Ewmer, of a motion to re-
duce the duties en sugar and coffee.
Sir CHARLES ADAM corrected a former statement of
his, by informing the House that the Admiralty had
received, during his absence at Easter, dispatches rela-
tive to the North-West Passage.
Mr. GOCLBURN, on the part of Sir GEORGE CLERK,
postponed his observations on Mr. HoesmaN's accep-
tance of office, till be saw whether that gentleman
wou'd be in the House to answer them himself.
The CIIANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER explained
that he had been misunderstood, and, in some places,
misreported, as having stated that no negotiations were
going on with America on the subject of rough lice.
On the contrary, he stated that negotiations were
on foot.
Mr. VILLIERS again brought forward his motion for
the House to go into a Committee on the Corn-laws,
which he introduced by a most able speech. In parti-
cular, he lashed, with great vigour and great success,
the double-faced and infirm policy of Sir K. PEEL, who
makes a speech in support of the Corn-laws, which would
not prevent him to-morrow, if he were Minister, from
bringing in a Bill to alter them. Mr. VILLIEas spoke
with more animation than on former occasions, and did
not confine himself to the mere economical effects of the
Corn-laws. He pointed out the political effects which
would by :he consequence of having a population
thoroughly discontented and wholly alienated from
the Government and Legislature. He warned
the House of Commons that it would be
unable to maintain the present laws if it were to try,
by trying would endanger the safety of the State.
the Hon. Gentleman's speech will have no inconsider-
able
effect on the country ; the latter part of it was
heard, however, by only a very few country gentlemen,
who sot listlessly and yawning for their dinner on the
Opposition benches, and that class will be astonished that
a speech, which they heard with such sleepy indiffer-
ezce, has kindled general enthusiasm.

Mr STRUTT seconded the motion, and proved 'o de:
monstr tticn that the slidirg wale of kept
earn when the price was rising, and overwhelmed the
market with it when the price had risen. He showed
that the sliding scale gave a large bounty to the im-
porting merchants, by whose agency the price is
to be kept steady, to make the price vary.
Sir CHARLES BURRELL was the foremost champion
of the landowners, and by putting him forward we be-
gin to believe that they are ashamed of their cause.

Mr. EASTHOPE followed, who spoke out boldly, con-
sistently with the wants and wishes of the people of
Leicester.
Mr. HEATHCOTE and Mr. PACEE resisted the
motion. Sir HENRY PARNELL supported it, and his
authority is great.
Mr. BAILEY said the abolition of the Corn-laws would
injure the agriculturists, and could not benefit the manu-
facturers ; while Mr. JAMES, still claiming protection
for the agriculturists, would vote for going into Com-
mittee.

Lord SANDON defended the destitution, misery,
and death inflicted on the people,—the cutting
down of the population so emphatically de-
scribed by Mr. FARING, when he was Mr. .BARING,
because in other countries, suffering under a similar or
worse system of vicious and plundering legislation, the
people arc also the victims a disease. The Noble
Member for Liverpool was ready to consider a distinct
plan, but he declined to go into a Committee.

Mr. WARBURTON zealously and honestly supported,
Mr. HANDLEY opposed, and Mr. M. PHILLIPS spoke
in its fat our. The House now began to grow very jai.
patient, and called for a division.

Lord JOHN RUSSELL spoke towards midnight, and
declared that he should vote for the motion, but not
with a view to abolish the Corn-laws. Though he did
not altogether agree with Lord MELaouttNE, he thought
sonic protection was due to agriculture, and he shoul.i
go into the Committee with a view of establishing a mo-
derate fixed duty.
Mr. PRYME again moved his amendment ; the House
growing more impatient, the Hon. Member made a sh,at
speech.__ _ _

Mr. Alvan z, the representative for Birmingham, for
the first, and, we presume, the last time, spoke against
the motion, and described the abolition of the Corn-!aws
ns causing a fall in wages. The Hon. Member looks
to other remedies for the sufferings of the people than
the abolition of the Corn-laws, which would be I,•ss
palatable to the country gentlemen who cheered him,
and allowed him to speak, than the abolition itself.
Mr. VILLIERS replied, and complained that thy
House had stifled the discussion ; that several gentle-
men had risen on his side to speak in support of his
motion, whom the House would not hear. But though
the country gentlemen stifled discussion in the House,
they will only extend it out of doors, and provoke dis-
cussion into their right to sit in that House to tax
others for their advantage. The Hon. Member also
justiy satirized Mr. MUNTIS speech. On re-
suming his scat, the House divided—Ayes, 177 ;
Noes 300 ; Majority 123. We are not disappointed
by the division, and agree with Mr. STRUTT, that sooner
or later the question must be carried in spite of the
House.

Subsequently to the division, the SOLICITOR- GENE-
RAL explained the provisions of his Registration ail
for Ireland, and obtained leava to bring it in.
The House adjourned at Two o'Clock.

Mr. F. O'CCNNOR has been sentenced to
eighteen months' imprisonment in York Castle for
a seditious libel. Under the present kw that is an
offence of which almost every editor of a News-
paper in the kingdom is guilty, whenever it pleases
the ATTORNEY-GENERAL to ask a Court of
Law to say so. The same punishment, therefore,
as Mr. O'CONNOR is subjected to in York Castle,
may be inflicted on the majority of the editors of
Newspapers. We have published his own account
of the treatment he suffers, and we confidently ap-
peal to every man in the kingdom whether such a
species of punishment is at' all suitable to his
offence, or was meant to be inflicted by the Legis-
lature. We believe that it is equally abhorrent to
the feelings of Englishmen, and to the intentions
of the lawmakers, arid we know it to be a complete
novelty in the administration of our law.
The first persons guilty of a seditious libel who
were compelled to herd with the felonry of a
gaol, and were treated like felons, were Messrs.
LOVETT and COLLINS. When Mr. WAR-
BURTON brought their case before the House on
April 13th, the several instances of Mr. CoBBETT,
the Messrs. LEIGH. and JOHN HUNT, of Sir F.
BURDETT, of Mr. WINTERBOTHANI, &e., were
all quoted to show that persons previously sentenced
to imprisonment for seditious libels were allowed to
feed themselves ; they had respectable apartments
allotted to them in the gaol, saw their friends when
they pleased, and lived as comfortably as it was pos-
sibly for men to live deprived of their liberty.
Messrs. LOVETT and COLLINS, however, on being
guilty of the same offence, were stripped on enter ing
the prison, had their hair cut off, and were in all
respects, till their friends interfered, treated like
felons.

Somewhere about 1833, we believe, an Act was
passed empowering the Magistrates to make regu-
lations for the different prisons, and amongst those
reaulations made for Warwick gaol, and made, as it
appears, for York gaol, there is some such regula-
tion as this, that every person imprisoned for misde-
meanour shall be treated in the same manner. The
Magistrates, therefore, when a person is sentenced
to imprisonment on account of a seditious libel,
which is classed as a misdemeanour, subject him to
their common gaol regulations, and to prevent fa-
vouritism it has also been settled, we believe, that
there shall be no exemptions from the common
treatment, but on account of illness. So Messrs.
LOVETT and COLLINS were subjected to the re-
gulations of Warwick gaol, so Mr. F. O'Co NNo a
is subjected to the regulations of York gaol, and so
every person convicted of a sedi.ious libel may be
subjected to the same, or similar treatment, accord-
ing to the gaol regulations, in any gaol of the
kingdom.
We have heard it said that certain persons, who
are no great admirers of the Press, gladly availed
themselves of the case of LOVETT and COLLINS,
who were poor and very unpopular with the middle
and influential classes, to show how heavily they
can punish the editors of Journals, whether
provincial or metropolitan. Mr. O'CONNOR, a
gentleman who is also extremely unpopular
with the middle classes, is another excel-
lent subject, it is supposed, on whom to try
the experiment. He is the editor and proprietor of
a Journal. From him the punishment may be
extended to other editors and proprietors, and they
will have no right to complain of similar treatment,
if they see with silence or indifference the indigni-
ties to which Mr. O'CoNNoR is now subjected.
Perhaps, when the editors and proprietors of several
London Journals shall in turn be compelled to eat
skillagalee out of an earthen bowl in company with
felons, or go without breakfast, and shad be com-
pelled to rinse out their own iron chamber utensil,
an endeavour will be made, if not before, to kindle
public indignation against such unworthy treat-
ment. We shall not wait till their turn, nor till
our own turn comes, to denounce it as wholly un-
just and tyrannical. We must, in conclusion,
whisper as gently as we can in Lord NORMAN-
BY'S ear, that any Government—though we be-
lieve the Ministers have had nothing whatever to
do with determining the place of confinement to
which Mr. O'CONNOR has been sent, or the scan-
dalous manner in which he is treated—that any
Government which even tolerates, much less adopts,
such cruelty, is wholly undeserving of any support
thefromP e Press,
ss ,
ba
yn d
everywi will
us most
Journal of
certainly
tbe empire.
bei opposedr
and e
o dm

A short but interesting debate took place last
night in the House of Lords on the presentation of
a petition by the Archbishop of DUBLIN, for
some change in the Articles and Liturgy of the
Church of England. The difference of opinion
amongst the Right Rev. Prelates on the subject
was remarkable, one declaring that no clergyman
Wok the oaths but with a reservation as believing
the Articles in his own sense—another declaring
that every clergyman he had ever met with conscien-
tiously believed every word of the Articles. Most
of the Rev. Prelates, however, ben a)ed a sneaking
wish fur an alteration, but it must be made by
themselves in convocation assembled. They are
anxious fur the revival of that absolete court, but
admitsist tohnatoittheirs
pdeilliopeluelti to revive it. An edifyir.g
spectacle they presented to the world, differing
amongst themselves about those dogmas which they
in
,—admitting that
the Church recognizes liberty of conscience and
private judgment, but, at the same time,
insisting that it stands on truth, of which they
alone are the judges and expounders, and which it
is a sin not to embrace as they dictate it. They
cannot help acknowledging that an alteration is
necessary, but they will not allow the Parliament
and the laity to make it, and they have no power
to make it themselves.

Preparatory to this debate, the Times had an
article yesterday on the subject, in which it threw