The Sun.
London, England, 1841-04-30 00:00:00

laughed, the Noble Lord's speech was notwelcome
to his friends, and did no harm to his opponents.
He seems to be as much in the dark about the
beneficial interest now as he was in 1832, when
the poor reporter of the Mirror so grievously
misunderstood him. He thought he had done
well, too, when he attempted to show that under
the Bill there would be 450 qualified tenements,
and it was because it would give an extensive
franchise to the Irish that he opposed it. The
Noble Lord avowed himself to be the enemy of the
liberties of the people, and by the same reasoning
he demonstrated that his opponents were their
friends. We have heard Lord STANLEY make
many speeches, but we never heard him make a
worse or a more blundering speech.
Mr. C. WOOD defended his consistency and
the consistency of Lord HOWICK, by attempting
to show that the proposed 201. occupancy fran-
chise would have added to the constituency,
and that the leasehold franchise would destroy
it. He opposed the clause because it continued
the leasehold franchise. He and Lord HOWICK
have an odd way of showing their love to
Ireland.

Mr. HUME explained why he should vote for
the clause, and showed Mr. WOOD and Lord
HowlcK that they who declared that the Tories
would allow no good measures t 3 be passed for
Ireland ought also to vote for it. They were
deaf, we believe, to his admonitions.
Mr. O'CONNELL made a short, neat speech, in
which he pointed out, for the especial use of
the Ministers and the people of Ireland, that
Lord STANLEY had said—though his saying was
an exaggeration—that the Bill would give a very
large constituency to Ireland.
After some shuffling talk by Lord STANLEY
about beneficial interest, and a kind of promise
on his part that if the constituency were
much narrowed he should be ready to
adopt the occupancy clause of Lcrd
HOWICK, and a few words from Lord JOHN
RUSSELL, to the effect that he did not understand
what the Noble Lord meant, nor why the Tories
opposed the clause, the Committee divided,
and the Ministers were defeated by a majority
of 11. For the clause, 289; against it, 300.
Lord JOHN RUSSELL then announced that
it was fruitless to continue the discussion on
the Bill, and moved that the Chairman report
progress.
Sir R. PEEL defended himself from the charge
of not having explained the ground of his oppo-
sition to the Bill. He most distinctly accused
Lord J. RUSSELL of being the enemy of Ireland,
because he raised his proposed franchise from Si.
to Si., which was what the Tories did in the case
of the Municipal Bill. The Right Honourable
Baronet forgot that the Tories did that wan-
tonly, and for the purpose of inflicting an
injury, and Lord JOHN RUSSELL raised his pro-
position in order to get something fbr the Irish.
He knew lie could not carry the 5/. and he pro-
posed 8/. as the next best thing he was likely to
obtain for them. The astuteness of Sir ROBERT
PEEL is far greater than his sincerity.
The House shortly after resumed, and ad-
journed.

The Ministerial Bill is now at an end, the
Ministers haVe come to the point which we
recommended them to jump to on Tuesday, and
had they then stopped the Bill they would have
saved themselves front the mortificat►on of this
additional defeat, and from the taunts of Sir R.
PEEL. We are heartily glad that the worthless
discussion is at an end. We presume that Lord
STANLEY will now try to carry forward his Bill;
but he cannot succeed, and the attempt will only
give rise to angry, useless talk.
There remains the question what are the Irish
to do to protect their liberties from the assaults
of the Irish landlords and the Imperial Parlia-
ment. We wish that every Irishman could have
been present in the House of Commons during
the debate; and, were that possible, when they
had witnessed the unseemly manner in which
the debate was conducted, the groans with
which the speakers were greeted, the ob-
vious impatience of the Tories to go to
dinner,—when they had witnessed what
we witnessed, they would have returned
home resolved to appeal to anybody, but not to
the mob called the House of Commons. They
would reflect that it is for the people to decide
who shall make laws for them, and no other
power. "The question," they would say, "who
shall be our representatives, and how we shall '
choose them, is a question fbr our decision and not
yours. You are the chosen, the deputed, and
have no right to prescribe how we shall choose,
or whom we shall depute. You exceed your
power by attempting to enfranchise or disfran-
chise us. We were made freemen by na-
ture, and we will not be made slaves
by you." If the Irish were to so re-
resolve, it could surprise no man. If they were
all to say, " The Union was accomplished by an
authority which we disown, a Parliament which
was not elected by us,—we have tried it for a long
period, and, as it is not good of itself, we will
have a revision of the contract," we could not
blame them. Like all compacts, the Union, to
be lasting, must be founded in justice, which is
not the case with the present Union between
Ireland and England.

We could not find space yesterday to express
our deep regret at the election of. Mr. WALTER
for Nottingham; not that we have any enmity
to Mr. WALTER, but we had a high opinion of
Nottingham, which has, we think, disgraced itself
by the election. A gentleman, as far as we
know, every way worthy of their support, offered
himself on the broad principles of abolition of the
Corn-laws, Freedom of Religion, Extension of
the Suffrage, and Vote by Ballot. They have re-
jected him, and chosen a gentleman who is a de-
clared friend to the Corn-law, an enemy toFreedom
of Religion, for he is a staunch friend to the Church,
and who laughs at Extension of the Suffrage and
Vote by Ballot as vain theories. The electors of
Nottingham have lent their aid to bolster up
those monopolies which are the sinews of the
Tory strength and the ruin of the country. If
they should continue to suffer from want of
trade, if starvation should still haunt them, they
will henceforth have to add to their physical
sufferings the poignant regret of self-accusa-
tion. They have inflicted the injury on them-
selves. We are grieved at their want of know-
ledge, and their disregard of principle. Mr.
WALTER is an active, zealous man, but he ap-
peared at Nottingham as the champion of a
party and principles which are opposed to the
prosperity of Nottingham, and it was a disgrace
to the electors to choose him. We mourn over
the lost character of Nottingham.

The Tories represent the division of Monday
night as one of principle. Thus the Times, em-
bodying the observations of the most distin-
guished speakers on the point at issue, stated—
But in truth, it is of little consequence what may be the
exact amount of Lord Howick's amendment, verbally consi•
dered, inasmuch as it was distinctly understood during the
debate, and upon the division, by the admission of all parties,
that the point under consideration was really a question of
principle—no less a principle than whether property should be
the future basis of the qualification of voters in Ireland—
Whether a tenant who did not possess a clear beneficial interest
all the chaariebrifoa
otovetrhae nPI above his rent and other outgoings, should be entitled
spmeeantrry,
ofrnanbcohthisesidesTohfitshewas
House.the takenvieswirß.Peel
by
its
taai
mi d,
s 0t
h: tHe c
opinion
e to anod nabs considered
abstract
this
srtehusenolNuu
stoei
obnleLr
of
that
thismd' s
erkeam i
nodee—enud,p,mare,
Resolved,tcy oto be tt at
nhnoa -tt
to
to he the constitutcoenty franchise." the franchise, but that the profit of she land ought
u
But with all deference to the Times, to the
Tories, and the Whigs, it is quite impossible that
any such point could be at issue between the
Whigs and Tories, as whether property should
be the future basis of the qualification of
in Ireland. The Whigs acknowledge the prin-
ciple of property as the basis of representation
as well as the Tories, and would shrink with ter-
ror from acknowledging the opposite principle
They prove this by their Bill, which requires
not mere occupancy but rating to the poor at a
certain sum, and the possession of a lease. The
way the Times and Sir R. PEEL put the question
implies that the Ministers were the advocates
of the noble principle of population exclu-
sively as the basis of representation, not the de-
grading and servile principle of wealth, or what
a part of the population possesses. That question
has never yet been brought to an issue between
the two aristocratic parties ; that is the question
at issue between the Chartists and both parties ;
and the Whigs are as stanch defenders of the
right of property to be exclusively represented
as the Tories. The statement of the point at
issue is incorrect, and it is so put to gloss over
the miserable party disputes which the gentle-
men of the House of Commons dignify with the
name of the business of the nation.

But as the Tories put the question—represent-
ing themselves as the great and exclusive defend-
ers of the principle of pelf against population,
of the superiority of the clod on which man
treads to man himself—it becomes a most in-