The Sun.
London, England, 1846-02-07 00:00:00

SUN, LONDON, S

bring in both the Bills.
A new writ for the eastern division of the county of
Suffolk was ordered in the room of Lord HENNIKEE,
who had accepted the Chiltern Hundreds.
Lord Cateasvnax SOMERSET then proceeded to call
the attention of the House to the first Report of the
Select Committee on railway Bills. The Noble Lord
believed that by originating Irish Bills in the House of
Lords the best results would be effected.
Mr. F. FRENCH did not believe there would be any
advantage to Irish Bills by having them originated in
the Lords; on the contrary, he thought it would con-
duce to the passing of Irish measures to originate the
English ones in the ether House.
Mr. BEaNAL believed that the proposition of originat-
ing sumo railway Bills in the House of Lords was good,
but he thought in preferring Irish and Scotch Bills great
injustice might be done to the English measures. He
did not think that any party would consider the report
of. the Committee a great boon. It was a fallacy to
suppose that such a proposition would supply the
wants of the poor of Ireland. The first consideration for
the Committee was to see if they could not adopt a less
dilatory proceeding in Committees with respect to rail-
way Bills than at present existed.
The O'Corion. DON believed that the suggestion
of the Committee to give precedence to Irish Bills would
be productive of the best effects, as its adoption
would give employment to the Irish labourers at their
own doors, which they so much wanted.
Mr. AGLIONBY thought the best course to be adopted
would be to allow those Irish measures to commence in.
the House of Lords that would be benefited by so
doing, but not to compel all Irish railway Bills to
commence there, if with greater success they could
be proceeded with in the House of Commons.
Sir G. CLERK said the adoption of the suggestion of
the Hon. Member for Cockermouth would be attended
with the greatest injustice to competing lines.
After some observations from Mr. Ross, Mr. GREENE,
Mr. W. CoLLETT trusted that in bona fide measures
some course would be adopted to facilitate their pro-
seeding through the House.
Mr. BECKETT DENISON thought that if some of the
suggestions of the report were to be adopted, the greatest
injustice would be inflicted upon those measures that had
undergone the ordeal of the House of Commons, and had
been stopped in the House of Lords by the termination
of the session. These observations were particularly
applicable to the London and York Railway.
Mr. WARD could not see the justice.of the remark of
the Hon. Member for Leeds. He thought the House of
Lords ought to have the measure competing with the
London and York before it ere it decided in faiour of
any one of them.
Lord G. SOMERSET was convinced the public would
be benefited by the adoption of the report of the Com-
mittee.
Sir H. W. BARRON denied that employment would be
given immediately to the people of Ireland by passing
Irish railroads, because nothing could be effectually
done before August next.
After some further discussion, the report was agreed to.
Mr. 13C8FIELD brought in the Leeds and Bradford
Railway Bills, which were read a first time.
Mr. PHILP Muss gave notice th it he should, on
Monday, on the order of the day being read for the
House going into Committee on the resolutions proposed
by Sir ROBERT PEEL, on the subject of oar commercial
policy, move as an amendment that the House do resolve
itself into such Committee that day six munths.
Mr LABOUCHERE reminded the First Lord of the
Treasury of his promise to answer the question whether
the Governments of Spain and Brazil had taken any
steps of a retaliatory nature in consequence of the
differential duties imposed on the sugars.
Sir R. PEEL said that in January, 1840, the Brazilian
Government had imposed certain differential duties on
the products of those nations which did sot admit their
sugars at the same duty as those of the most favoured
nations, but as yet they had not acted on those powers.
The House adjourned at Seven o'clock.

MEETING OF THE LIBERALS
(THIS DAY.)
A very numerously attended meeting of Liberal
Members was held this forenoon at Lord Jowl Rus-
SELL'S house, in Chesham-place, to consider the course
to be taken in the approaching discussions on Sir Ro-
BERT PEEL'S proposals. We understand that Lord
JOHN RUSSELL addressed the meeting, pointing
out the danger to the measure that might arise
from an amendment in Committee for immediate
repeal of the corn-laws, whisk migkt be supported by
the protectionists, for the purpose of throwing a
difficulty in Sir ROBERT PEEL'S way, and, being car-
ried by a majority combined of free-traders and protec-
tionists, might cause Sir R. PEEL to throw up the
measure. We are told that the most perfect unanimity
prevailed as to the necessity of the Liberal party doing
everything in their power to pass that part of Sir R.PEEL's
PEEL'S measure which concerns corn as quickly as pos-
sible, and in thinking that, though immediate free trade
in corn would be preferable to its fulfilment in February,
1849, still it would not be right, under present circum-
stances, to risk the slightest delay in passing Sir ROBERT
PEEL'S measure by an amendment for immediate repeal.
The Members began to assemble at twelve,
meeting meeting broke up shortly
rd beforepalm Palmerston,
Sir George
Labouc ,
Molesworth, Mr. Bernal,
ra.mMacaulay, Mr. F. T. Baring,
attendedmr. wehr:re.
Lord Marcus 11111,
Gwhreoy,
Milner Gibson, Mr.
Mr. O'Connell, Sir Wirlimr.
Stitsrount,t,34Mr.r
J. T.
oho,Crnoenlnye,itriirG. eLc7adeeSr,trtihcke lEanadrl,
3lrof .SPhaelt:
bDuoren,a,LSorird THharomryasyWaniel,dem,
rA.iHr.ayTtuerfn, eall,entehrealOm'Coornrior.
son, &c. &c.
This unanimity at such a crisis is of the greatest lm-

portance, and will afford satisfaction to all the friends of
free trade. But it was only what might have been ex-
pected; any other line of policy would be inexpedient and
dangerous. The whole force of the Liberal party must
support Sir ROBERT PEEL in his present difficulties,
they must keep the main point in view, and not play
into the hands of their enemies by differing about trifles.
The Minister has conceded more than ever was
expected ; he deserves, therefore, the unanimous
support of the whole Liberal party throughout the
country, and the vote of every Member .who advocates
the removal of one of the most grievous burdens that
ever afflicted a community. Every Member who would
reject repeal, because it is delayed for three years,
ought to be regarded as an enemy to the cause.

When men engaged in a good cause lay down propo-
sitions which they consider grounds for their motives of
action, they generally adduce proofs to confirm their
assertions. They do not call upon the public to take all
their principles as axioms, but defend their case by
legitimate reasoning, and leave their antagonists the
opportunity of refuting them. The very opposite course
is pursued by the party who advocate restrictive and
prohibitive laws in reference to the importation of
foreign grain. For instance, they affirm as facts
beyond doubt, that the repeal of the corn-laws will
lower the rank of our peasantry, and throw thousands
upon thousands of acres out of cultivation. But here
they stop. No problem or proposition follows--conclusion
there is none—the words "which was to be demonstrated"
are not to be found in their vocabulary, and for the best
1 reason in the world, that evidence would destroy their
theory. The question then naturally arises—what has
protection done for the English or Irish peasantry?
Are they superior in comforts to those of France, or
Holland, or Germany, or to the peasantry of any
civilised country in Europe ? Men, with large families,
are doomed to live on Bs. a week, they are denied the
use of butcher's meat, they can enjoy only bread and
water, their children have barely rags to cover their
nakedness, and the mothers are often half famished, by
depriving themselves of food to hush the cries and
allay the hunger of their starving children. The
country is studded over with workhouses, and
some six or seven millions sterling a year are
expended in sheltering and feeding those who cannot
provide for themselves. In Ireland the case is infinitely
worse. Every humane mind shudders at the recital of
Irish misery, and all foreigners unite in describing the
people of that beautiful island as the most wretched on
the face of the earth. But if protection were worth any-
thing—above all, if it really was productive of those
blessings which such men as the Duke of RICHMOND
and Sir JOAN TYRRELL claim for it—lreland should be
the best cultivated country in the world, and the "Green
Isle " a visible and real Utopia—a Paradise in this
sublunary region, and a model for all lands. It enjoys
the benefit of the corn-laws to their full extent ; wheat
cannot be imported at present at a duty less than
15s. the quarter ; oats and barley in proportion ;
it rejoices in the sliding-scale like England, and is, there-
fore, saved from the effects of ruinous competition with
foreigners. But, besides this great boon, it has ex-
emptions of an extraordinary kind. Neither landlords
nor tenants are subject to the property and income-tax ;
they know nothing of assessed taxes, and till within the
last few years the people never saw a workhouse or paid
a penny of poor-rate. The Government pays one-half
of the police expenses—a large army is maintained in
the country, supplied with provisions and other neces-
saries from the productions of the land or the manufac-
tures of the country—church-rates, and other rates
are of the most moderate description ; yet with
all these protective laws and exemptions from bur-
dens, Ireland is not half cultivated ; some four millions
of the inhabitants are on the brink of starvation ;
men that cannot obtain employment or gain a liveli-
hood by honest means traverse the country in bands,
murdering and plundering the industrious, and nothing,
in short, but a large military and constabulary force
prevents a universal outbreak, and a total dissolution of
the social system. Such are the blessings of protection.
The country where it prevails to the utmost extent has
become the reproach of England and a byword among
nations. But for the extensive manufactures carried on
in Great Britain, and viewed with such jealousy by the
blind protectionists, affairs would be still worse ; for the
operatives engaged in these great national undertakings,
not only increase the demand for agricultural pro-
ductions to an incalculable extent, and throw new land
into cultivation, but they also draw large supplies from the
sister island ; yet, even here the land is badly cultivated,
for no other reason that can be assigned by impartial ob-
servers but this miserable delusion called protection.
The farmers have long reckoned that the corn-laws
would give them something like a fixed price of from 565.
to 66e. the quarter for wheat ; they have cultivated the
soil upon this security, aid though the delusion has been
fading away year after year, they still live in hope, and
will not exert themselves, like the other industrious classes,
of the community. The Duke of SUTHERLAND, who
knows the difference between the agricultural systems
pursued in England and Scotland, admits that in Eng-
land great improvements are required, and affirms that
the Scotch landowners, from the spirit of activity
and enterprise which they have long displayed,
will not endanger themselves by conceding at
once the repeal of the corn-laws. Scotland is
comparatively a poor and a barren country. And what•
then, has enabled the farmers there to compete with
those of England and Ireland ?—Not protection, but ne-
cessity. And till the English are compelled "to be up
and doing," like their brethren in the north—till they
trust to their own industry and inventions, instead of
leaning on a broken reed—all the protection that can
be devised will neither improve the condition of the
peasantry nor throw one acre of land into new culti-
vation.

It has long been a doubtful point among thinking men,
whether the plea of insanity in Criminal cases ought to
be left to the decision of an ordinary petit jury, and the
result of the trial of Captain JOHNSTONE yesterday will
go far to settle the question in the negative. We will
not go into the details of the crimes of this man. Our
readers have, no doubt, been horrified by the perusal of
the evidence given at the Thames Police. court,
and at the Central Criminal Court against him—
evidence which proves beyond the shadow of
a doubt that he was guilty of three delibe-
rate murders under circumstances of the most
atrocious cruelty—that in every instance he tortured his
victim before murdering him—and that there were many
others of his crew whose lives he attempted, all of whom
he wounded, and many of whom he has maimed for life.
The counsel for the defence admits that JOHNSTONE was
guilty of these crimes, and then proceeds to suggest to the
jury that he must have been labouring under temporary
insanity at the time he did so commit them. This is a
suggestion merely, for not a single witness was called
to prove what had been the state of mind of the prisoner
at any former periol of his life; and Mr. JERVIS himself
(JOHNSTONE'S counsel) distinctly admits that at the pre-
sent moment his client is perfectly sane, so that the
argument really amounts to this, that the atrocity of a
crime shall be its excuse : commit murder simply and
you will be hanged ; commit murder, accompanied by every
possible species of atrocity—torture your victim before you
dispatch him—hack, hew, and stab his murdered corpse,
and yourcounsel will suggest that it is impossible any but
a mad man could be guilty of such atrocities, and an Old
liailey jury, acting on the suggestion, will acquit you on the
ground of insanity. On this principle GEEENAERE
should have been acquitted, because he mutilated the
body of his victim after having murdered her. The
Learned Gentleman, in his defence of JOHNSTONE, in-
sinuated that the crew were aware that they had been
guilty of the mutiny, or that otherwise they would have
attempted to have put JOHNSTONE under restraint.
Suppose they had restrained him, would not that in
itself have been an act of mutiny? Would not every
man who bad made the attempt have done so with a
rope round his neck? Would not the fact of their having
attempted to restrain him have justified, in the eye of
the law, all JOHNSTONE'S previous proceedings, and
would not every individual of that orew have been tried
and convicted of—aye, and perchance executed for—
mutiny, on The evidence of Jon/01.01E himself, so soon
as the ship should have arrived in any port? Be it re-
membered, too, that these men in such a case could not
possibly have produced evidence to show the neces-
sity of placing this man under restraint. As soon
and al-
as he arrives in England he beeoraes sane, ac-
i
not
wh
irotduh al-
though hug t ato
anym e Mr. e r '
evidence suggestionjE I9t'os of s own
ps ao nr sti ht
tw,f nom a
i gs
considered
counsel,uside
r o d
by a jury sufficient to justify them in acquitting a cap-
tain charged with the murder of three of his crew,
we doubt whether the same jury would so readily admit
a similar suggestion as a justification for an acquittal of
a crew charged with mutiny against a captain. That
the crew took no measures to restrain the captain, that
they submitted patiently to his tyranny, and that,
notwithstanding all the tortures so wantonly in-
flicted on them, they brought the ship with
her valuable lading to her port in safety,
are facts which to our minds prove to demon-
stration that there never had existed on the
part of the crew the least intention to mutiny, and we
think that the evidence goes to show that the whole story
of the mutiny was a story trumped up by the captain as