The Sun.
London, England, 1846-05-02 00:00:00

would inflict the most serious injuries on the people of
Ireland.

Mr. MAURICE O'Coinizu. opposed the first reading of the
Bill.

Mr. Cor.caultoux supported the first reading of the Bill,
and defended the Irish landlords from the imputations that
bad been made against them.

Mr. J. O'Brien, Mr. Bellew, the Attorney-General, Mr. H.
Grattan, Mr. W. Collett, Mr. Sharman Crawford, Mr. Roche,
and other Hon. Members having addressed the House, a divi-
sion took place, when there appeared--
For the first reading
Against it

Majority --149
Sir R. PEEL said he proposed to take the second reading of
the Bill on the 25th instant.
Mr. O'Cotnattx stated that on that occasion he would
move for a Select Committee to inquire into agrarian offences
in Ireland, with a view to provide some means for their pre-

Tention.
The ether orders of the day were then disposed of, and the
House adjourned at a Quarter past Two o'clock,

The Hits inouospeof Commons has, for the fifth time, re-
cordedion in favour of the justice of the Danish
claims. The guardians of the public purse have, for a
fifth time, admitted that the debt which these claimants
demand, as due to theta from the State is a just debt,
:ind one which ought to be liquidated. Will the
Government, under these circumstances, continue
to refuse to take the necessary steps to carry into effect
the repeatedly expressed wishes of the House of Com-
m3llS ? Sir ROBERT PEEL has always expressed himself
PS entertaining the greatest respect for the well-ascer-
tained opinion of the House of Commons—as willing,
nay anxious, as far as possible, to defer to the
opinion of that House. In this case the opinion of
the House of Commons has been well ascertained,
In 1841, the last House of Commons, in spite of the
opposition of the Whig Chancellor of the Exchequer of
that day, decided in favour of these claimants. On Thurs-
day another House of Commons, in spite of the oppo-
sition of the Conservative Chancellor of the Exchequer
of the present day, also decided in favour of these
claimants. How is it possible to ascertain the opinion
of the House of Commons if it has not been effectually
ascertained in the present instance ? And, we trust,
therefore, that Sir ROBERT PEEL, the Minister who
possesses the confidence of the House of Commons, and
who has declared over and over again that he would not
retain office an hour after he lost that confidence, will
see the propriety of at once carrying into effect the well.
ascertained opinion of those whose confidence itis his boast
that he enjoys. The claimants are under great obligations
to Mr. HAWES for the masterly manner in which he
brought the subject before the House. His speech was
replied to by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who
commenced his speech by assuring the House " that
it was very painful to him to have again to repeat those
opinions and those sentiments which he had
so often had oecssicn to address to the House
on this particular subject." We believe this ex-
pression of regret on the part of Mr. GOULBURN
to have been sincere. It must be painful to a man of
Mr. GOULBURN'S high and honourable feelings to find
himselt compelled by his official duties to come forward
as the opponent of claims which are founded on
justice ; and it wa 3 to this feeling of the
unsoundness of the cause he was advocatirg
that we attribute his ill-judged, and ill-timed, and unjust
attack upon Mr. Justice CRESWELL—an attack, more-
over, infinitely more damaging to the speaker himself
than to the object of it ; for if Mr. GOULBURN
believed what he insinuated as to the motives
of Mr. Justice CRESSWELL in advocating the
cause of the Danish claimants, most assuredly Mr.
GOULBURN himself was very culpable for advising,
as a Minister of the Crown, the elevation of that
learned person to the bench. The legal question was
argued on behalf of the claimants with great learning
by Mr. WATSON. As laymen, it is nut for us
to sit in judgment on the legal arguments
of men learned in the law, but, judging from
appearances, we opine that the legal right of
these claimants is clear and undeniable. In the first
place, neither the Attorney nor the Solicitor-General
were present either during the debate or the division.
They had characters as lawyers to lose, and they
did not like to risk those characters by arguing against
the legality of these claims ; although the Judge-Advo-
cate, Mr. STUART WORTLEY, was present and voted in
the minority, he, too, felt that it would not be quite
safe to argue against Mr. WATSON'S view of inter-
national law, and therefore it was left to the Secretary of
the Treasury, Mr. CARDWELL, to reply to Mr. WATSON.
111. r. CARDIVtLL made the best fight he could, but in
order to support anything like a show of argument, he
was obliged to assume many things contrary to fact
(such, for instance, as that the claimants had suffered
their claims to remain dormant for thirty
years, when a reference to the records of his
Win Offlee, ..4Yould have shown him that, year
',lfA:eq-644 'these unfortunate persons had urged this
claim at the Treasury from the time when it first ac-
crued up to the present moment) to leave out of view
entirely many known and public transactions (slid:, for
instance, as the convention with Denmark of September
over riding, as it does, the previous declaration of Den-
mark in August), and after all it was evident
he argued the question solely as a point of
official duty, and that he would have been glad to have
been spared the task imposed upon him. Not so, how-
ever, Mr. F. BARING, the only Member not connected
with office, who, in the course of the debate, spoke
against the claims. It was evident from the eager manner
of the Right Honourable Gentleman, that he had not
forgotten that the prelude to the downfal of his Ad-
ministration was the majority against him on this very
question in 1841, and it appeared almost as if he had
never forgiven the claimants for having beaten him
on that occasion. Mr. F. BARING came for-
ward as a volunteer to the assistance of Mr. CARD-
WELL, and officiating as a sort of amateur and very un-
learned Solicitor-General, by his argument—

" Made that darker
Which was dark enough without."
When it is recollected that both the ATTORNEY and
SOLICITOR-GENERAL had, on former oceasions, given
opinions favourable to the claimants, and that
they were both absent on the present occa•
sion, we think it must be admitted that the silence
of the law officers of the Crown is much more effective
than the eloquence of Mr. F. BARING, and that there
can be no doubt that these claims are as well
founded in law as they are in equity and in
justice The last Ministry refused to carry into
effect the clearly expressed opinions of the
last House of Commons in favour of these claimants.
In three months that Ministry was out of office. We
hope the present Ministry, will not follow their example.

This is indeed a remarkable session of Parliament,
distinguished for the sound principles of commercial
policy, which, broughtforward by the Government, have
boen received with the greatest delight by the large
majority of our legislators, and of the country at large,
distinguished too for the enlightened spirit of liberality
and tolerance which has directed the attention of Mem-
bers of our Senate to the removal of the last remnants of
intolerance, the abominable and vexatious penal
laws by which our statute-book has so long
been defaced, and the existence of which
hesebasyuttcheveueoegnetriabzanht the
lenfotrugrtheeatimbpliooust on the British
,zsrheeeption of, and the tone in
Melt, the several me
on Thursday
spirit manifested
introduction. The Loan
ce:: been discussed on their
moved the second reading of theAßecll:Laa
toleration, sweeping
Bill, a measure which may be termedir Opinions
Relict'
away no less thannAtcht. of universal
statutes, by everyirty different
which persons ofshade,
Established Chuyrch,whtihehe
variety, and sect were oppressed, la
the member
gossible to sa
of the
and the Jew, is
Dissenter, the Roman Catholic,
affected, and it is hp
whichi is deserving of
the highest praise—the intrinsic excellence
sure itself, or the tone of high
which
ran through the entire speech in which iality
rimed to the notice of the House. The existetnweeas
fintro-
-minaecienleibeerof the mea-
sure
atrocious and pernicious enactments in the nineteenthabh
century is scarcely credible ; true it is, that they had
been suff.red to slumber for many years, and might
be considered as almost obsolete. Yet, as Lord
BROUGHAM well remarked, " they were not with
out a pernicious vitality, and might be put
into activity at any moment."; A remarkable in-
,tance of this was mentioned as having occurred so
late as the year 1841, and in which we are at a loss to
express our wonder at the audacity of the magistrates
by whom such a law was attempted to be enforced, and
how they contrived to escape the consequences of the
overwhelming flood of popular indignation to which the
outrage on every principle of justice, of which they had
been guilty, must have given rise. According to the
statement of the Noble and Learned Lord (Baotiotwa),
in that year, certain persons were taken up and
brought before those most excellent justices on a charge
of poaching, which could not be substantiated; the men
were therefore acquitted, and about to be discharged,,
when a brilliant thought flashed on the mind of one of
their judges. He asks, Were you at church last Sunday?
No, answered the defendants, or the Sunday before that
either, and forthwith they are convicted on their own
admission, and punished, not for the crime for which
they bad been apprehended, end with which they were
charged' set as poacher!, but as recusant& The '