The Sun.
London, England, 1846-02-20 00:00:00

lain h ill_ t Oillt.

LONDON, FRIDAY, FEBRUARY 20, 1846.

Mr. LOCKHART took the oaths and his seat for Selkirk.
Several railway Bills were read a second time, and or-
dered to be committed.

Various petitions having been presented,
Mr. floposox lIINDE gave notice that tomorrow he
should ask if the Government intended to introduce any

-----
legislative measure founded on the report of the Gauge

Commissioners.

Sir J. GRAHAM, in reply to Mr. WODEMOUSE, said
that he would place his Bill for regulating the law of
settlement on the table of the House on an early day,
but that he would not pre:a it forward until the Bill

regulating our commercial policy should have been

passed.
The County Works (Ireland) Bill was read a third
time and passed.
The Drainage (Ireland) Bill wa read a third time.
Sir J. GRAHAM moved a new clause, authorising works
to be undertaken on the consent of a bare majority of

the proprietors, instead of requiring the consent of two-
thirds, as at present, and throwing the burden of proof
upon those who affirmed that the consent of the ma-
jority had been obtained.
The clause was agreed to and added to the Bill, and
the Bill was passed.
Mr. CoLurrr then rose to move for a Committee of
Privileges to inquire into the causes that led to the

vacation of their seats in this House, by the Members
lately. representing Chichester, Newark, Woodstock,
and Buckingham, to make inquiries as to the elections
of the present Members for those places, and to inquire
how far the standing order against the interference of
Peers in elections had been infringed. The Honour-
able Member commenced reading his speech, and was
met with loud cries of " order." He, however, con-

tinned to read amidst loud cries of "order," intermingled
with laughter, which occasionally rendered him in-
audible. The excuse for the old nomination boroughs
had been, that they insured seats for men of
,talent ;
but in these new nomination boroughs talent was re
jetted. Why, he would ask, had Mr. GLADSTONE
been prevented from coming forward as a candidate
for Newark ? Why, because he was a member of the
Government of the Right Hon. Baronet, and the Right
Hon. Baronet was opposed to the Duke of NEWCASTLE.

In the cases of Chichester and Buckingham, Sir T.
FREMANTLE and Lord A. LENNOX had been compelled
to resign by the Dukes of BUCKINGHAM and RICHMOND,
and two inexperienced youths returned by those Noble
Dukes in their places, and thus the House had bean
deprived of the services of the best Irish Secretary at a
most important period. Now, by their own standing orders,

,he interference of Peers in the elections of Members of

bad been induced to rush into the market ; they hal
been deceived ; and the farmers having found thOse pro-

phecies false, would not trust his prophecies for the future.
Then, with regard to the lion. Member for Sunderland,
who seemed to regard the prospect of a famine in Ire-
land with iron nerves, he had certainly said that he
could import his foreign corn at 255. a quarter ; but he
had been wise enough to keep his secret, and did not tell
them where this cheap corn could be procured. Like
a good political economist, the lion. Gentleman bought
in the cheapest and sold in the dearest market. lie
would advise the lion. Member to withdraw his rr-

Apectable name from the provisional committee of the
bubble of protection— a scheme to keep up high rents
and high prices by artificial means. High prices did
not benefit the farmer—they were caused by scarcity,
Neither did they benefit the labourer, for the nominal
high wages of England could only be exchanged for a
less quantity of food than could be procured abroad for
the low wages paid there. Wages were not regulated
by the price of corn. In America corn was cheap and
wages were high. In England the price of corn had
been kept up by artificial means, and the diet of the
labourer bad been reduced in consequence from beef to
bread, and ultimately from beef to potatoes. The Noble
Lord then traced the history of the corn-laws from 1630
to 1815. When the law of 1815 was intro-
duced, Mr. lioniNsort declared that the object
of the measure was not to benefit the hncled
aristocracy, although they now asked for compen-
sation for the withdrawal of protection. He 1+ as
a landowner and a farmer, and he believed they had
nothing to fear from competition. Believir g the mea-
sure of the Government calculated to benefit all classes
of the community, he should give it his hearty support.
Mr. HUDSON denied, in the most emphatic manner,
that he had spoken lightly of the distresses of Ireland.
He had said that he admitted that distress, and would
support any measure that might be brought forward for
the alleviation of it.

Mr. Alderman THOMPSON had eat in that House for
twenty-six years, and had observed the effects of the
various changes which had been introduced into our
commercial policy during that period. He had also wit-
nessed the great changes in our banking system which
had been introduced, and the success of which had not
as yet been tested, and concerning the effects of which
men of experience entertained great doubts; and looking
to the enactments of these monetary measures, and to
the admission of the Right Hon. Baronet that he was
not prepared to state that other countries would
take our manufactures in return, he feared
that the free importation of corn would
greatly derange the currency. He admitted that
the potato crop in Ireland had failed to a great extent.
He would ask, why had not the Government taken mea-
sures to provide against the danger by opening the
ports? The reason he believed was that there was no
Anti-Corn-law League then to delude the people as
there was now. It was a delusion for them to say that,
under a repeal of the corn-laws, the present rate of
wages could be maintained. Where was the necessity for
the proposed change ? The raanufaeturers were making
large profits, employment was plenty, wages were high,
and the people were contented and happy. The number of
depositors in the savings' banks, and the aggregate
' capital of those institutions, had greatly increased since
1841, proving the increased prosperity of the indus-
trious classes. Under these circumstances, what neces-
sity was there for proposing these great Chang. s,
would rtftn the best customer of the manufacturcr—
namely, the agriculturist. If, as had been stated. protec-
tion was in every circumstance bad, he would a lc,
why had the measure not been made more ext. ns;ve?
Was not the Cornish miner protected ? Did they intend
to repeal the Navigation Laws? Had they not a right
to demand the abolition of the shipowners' monopoly
of the coasting trade ? He m;ght be answered that the
national safety required that foreigners should not iefer-
fere with our coasting trade; and if so, honesty required
that protectian should be continued to agriculture. Ile
knew of no country in which free trade existed, and he
could not support the proposition of the Government.
He asked where was there a statesman who advcci.ted
free trade ?

that house was declared a high breach of privilege.
The Hon. Gentleman then read from the journals seve-
ral cases in which the House had noticed the inter-
ference of Peers in elections. The Hon. Member would,
first of all, draw the attention of the House to Chichester,
On referring to " Dodd's Parliamentary Guide," he
found it stated under the head of " Chichester," that the
Duke of RICHMOND'S influence returned one Member for
the city. Lord ARTHUR LENNOX, who had frequently
represented Chichester, had accepted office (luring
the last autumn ; he had been re-elected ; had
taken the oaths and his seat on the 27th of January,
and on the Bth of February a new writ had
been moved for. The Hon. Gentleman then quoted
rrom various newspapers the accounts given as to the
cause of the resignation of Lord A. LENNox, and the
election of Lord H. Lvexox, and declared his opinion
that the privileges of the House had been infringed upon
by the interference of CHARLES Duke of RICHMOND
in the representation of Chichester. In Newark,
it was stated in " Dodd's Parliamentary Coirpa-
nion," that the Duke of NEWCASTLE'S influence
was great. The Honourable Gentlemen then re-
lated the history of the last election for Newark,
and stated that he believed that in respect to that bo-
rough the privileges of the House had been infringed
by HENRY PELHAM, Duke of NEWCASTLE, who had
concerned himself in the election for Newark. He
next referred to Woodstock, and related the history of
the various recent elections fur that borough, concluding
by declaring that it was his impression, and he stated
that he verily believed the privileges of Parlia--

ment had been infrirged by GEORGE SPENCER

Sir R. PEEL intimated that the Hon. Member hid
signed the famous London free-trade petition in 1820.
Mr. Alderman TnomPsoN admitted he had done so,
but he still asked, where was there the statesman in

CHURCHILL, Duke Of MARLBOROUGH, by his hav-
ing concerned, himself in the election of Members to
serve in Parliament for the borough, all which charges,
if a Committee were granted, he verily believed he
should establish. He then referred to the case
of Rackingham, in which the Duke of BUCKINGHAM
possessed great influence, and he charged the Duke of
BUCKINGHAM with having infringed the liberties and
privileges of the House by his having concerned him-
self in the return of Members to that House for the
borough of Buckingham. The Hon. Member concluded
by moving for the appointment of a Select Committee,
and placed ,in the hands of the Speaker the charges he
had made against certain Peers, which he was prepared
to prove to the Committee.
Mr. W. WILLIAMS seconded the motion. He did not
expect to have been called upon to do so. Ile had ex-
pected that the Noble Lord the Member for Chichester,
or the Noble Marquis the Member for Buckingham,
would have seconded the motion, in order to answer the
charges against themselves and their Noble Fathers.
He expected that Government would have supported
such a motion. These charges were so grave that
the House of Commons ought not to pass them over
without inquiry. In the cases which had been brought
forward by the Hon. and Learned Member for Bath, a
Committee had been granted, and the present charges
were of even a graver nature. These charges involved
matters degrading to the character of the House, and
they were bound to inquire into a matter of such grave
impertanze. The charge was, that those Peers had
compelled Members, who supported a measure brought
forward for the public benefit by the Government, to
resign their seats, and lied returned nominees who
would vote against those measures intended for the
public good, and ia support solely of the private inte-
rests of those Noble persons. The Government, which
had been calumniated by these Noble
ia
persons,si
ghrac efu,atl an
int( rest in having this inquiry ma It was
ro the gentlemen of England to have shown the seTish
feeling they had shown in relation to the measure pro-
posed by the Government. If the representation of the
people was to be tainted in this way, they would raise an
Agitation for a new reform, and new schedule A. The
Peers should be warned by the fate of the aristocracy in
the French revolution; and not set up their privatein-
terests against these of the public.
Sir It. PEEL could see no necessity for iptrodueing
the question of the corn-laws into this debate, neither
was it fair to impute improper motives to those who
were under charge. With regard to the imputations
against himself by those noble persons, he must say he
was not aware that any such imputation; of dishonest
motives had been made ; and if there had, he must say
that that would not influence his decision in the least.
net the Peers exercised an influence in elections it
was observed to: deny, and he hoped the day weu'd never
arrive when the Peers would cease to exercise a legiti-
mate influence. God forbid that the day should ever
arrive when either Peers or Commoners should cease to
sxercise the influence of virtue. The less of coercion
was exercised by a virtuous and high minded man
the greater would be his influence. The question was,
however, had any illegitimate influence been exercised
by those Peers ? If they granted this Committee there
oever µ ould eccur an election in the case of which a si-
milar inquiry might not be called for. The Hon. Gen-
tleman had not adduced one single fact or offered one
single proof of any act of interference on the part of
those Peers. The Hon. Member had read certain ex-
tracts from newspapers, but surely he would not
condemn public men on this authority. The only
reason why his Right Honourable Friend had
vacated his seat was a too delicate sense of honour,
which he could not blame, although, constitutionally,
he thought it was wrong, if they were assembled there
not as delegates but as free agents. Then, with regard
to Sir THOMAS FREMANTLE, he had at his election
given a specific pledge that he would retain the corn-
law, and on the representation of the majority of his
constituents, those constituents not bc.sing urged by the
'nfluenced of any Peer, be had deemed it his duty to
resign his seat. Let it be remembered that they lived
in an atmosphere of public cpinion. Peers had a right
to express their opinion in a public meeting, if they
would, of the conduct of public men, and if their tenants
and friends chose to adopt their advice, he would not
wish to prevent it. If they could bring forward any
proof of an improper and direct interference of Peers at
elections, he would vote for inquiry,. but he would not
vote for a fishing committee, and ho would act as be
would have done if the Noble individuals had still con-
tinued to him their confidence, and would offer his de-
f
owttlioeatnhne.
cided opposition to the motion.
Mr. HUME thought it absurd to continue the standing
orders, but he would recommend his Hon. Friend to
withdraw his motion, as he certainly had not brought
forward sufficient evidence to authorise the appointment
the nomination boroughs had not been all done away
Mr. S. e
—.BA.wroat? was more than ever convinced of
boe
eymieraits:let,itty.Rei
seoe'liffeo;lmt sl
however, perfectly clear that
stillt further reform in the representa-
tion,
illegitimate legitimate influence maintained,
what it ought to be influencea_ destroyed, and this House made
people. full and fair representation of the
Mr. COLLETT then withdrew his
motion.
Lord J. RUSSELL complained that
papersl laid on
the table in reference to the war
war,with t
andenwoisshAxes
threw no light on the origin of the
know if any further papers would be laid on the table ?to
Sir R. PEEL could not produce any further papers at
present.
Lord PALMERSTON asked if any convention had been
entered into between this country. and France prior to
the commencement of hostilities in Buenos. Ayres, for
•
the purpose of regulating the conduct of those hostilities?
Sir R. PEEL said instructions had been issued by the
twobut
tGhaotrenroncmoennytesnftoiornthheadrebgeuelnateionnteoref( into.tihoseoperations,
then Threesadu
Inoeudrnbeyd debate on the commercial
policy
Lord DUNCAN, who ridiculed the idea of the
being deluged by foreign corn, as had been
prophesied
country
by the Member for East Somersetshire. On the tariff
debate that Hon. Gentleman had prophesied that there
would be an imense import of foreign cattle, and graziers

Europe or America who was an advocate for a perfect
free trade? Mr. WEBSTER certainly was not, for he
had only, recently declared himself a protectionist. He
was not inclined to go back or stand still in their com •
martial policy, but be did not go on in the road pointed
out by the Right Hon. Baronet. In calculating the in-
creased rental of 1842, as compared with 1815, the Ri;,ht
Hon. Baronet had omitted to allude to the great quan-
tity of waste land enclo.;ed since that period, and there-
fore his conclusion was fallacious. He believed that the

Right Hon. Barorict would have done far more good in
r.Ttucin. the duty on tea and sugar than in bringing
forward this question. lie deeply regretted that a sense
of duty compelled him to vote against the proposition of
the Right Hon. Bort-met.

Sir W. MOLESWORTII supported the measure, believ-
ing that the adoption of the proposition of the Govern-
ment would be beneficial to all parties.
• Mr. BENETT felt bound to oppose the measure intro-
duced by the Right lion. Baronet. Cheap corn and
cheap lsbour might exist together, but cheap corn and
dear labour never could. The effect of the measure
would be to crush the little farmers, as the l.ttle manu-
facturers had been, and ultimately to reduce the wages
of the labourer. He cepjected to the measure because
it would have that (Met, and he firmly believed that in
doing so he was supporting, rot only the landed but the
manufacturing in-rest. He was convinced that when
this question was carried the tall chiinnies of the manu-
facturer would be undermined and totter to thsir
Ha had much respect for the balance of parties in the'
Haase, but he did not believe that the furtherance of
that object would be effected by the carrying of the pre-
sent measure.
Mr. F. li. BERKELEY denied that the Hon. Member
who moved the amendment represented the
,opinions of
the constituency of the city. s.f Bristol on this great
subject, and felt convinced that an appeal to the country
would justify him in that assertion. He should support
the proposition of the Government.
Mr. J. ToeisEaraeun would vote against the free-
trade proposition of her Majesty's Government. His
opinions with respect to free trade remained unchanged.
He was afraid that this measure would not only pass
this but the other House of Parliament.
Mr. T. DUNCOMRE supported the measure. lie
thought that it became those who owed their seats, nut
to any Noble Lord, but to the people, to rescue the
Right Honourable Baronet from the obloquy that was
attempted to be cast upon him. He admits d the man-
ner in which the Right Hon. Baronet had brought for-
ward this question, and the determination which he had
displayed to carry it out. The Recorder of Dublin
bad called the Right Honourable Baronet and his
Government political cowards ; he believed cowardice
was on the other side. The Right Hon. Baronet
had done a great service to his country in bringing this
question forward, and ho would meet his reward. lie
would give him his most cordial support, feeling eon-
vinced that his measures were sound, and his object
worthy of a great statesman. The people of England
were a grateful and forgiving people ; they forgot the
errors the Right Hon. Baronet had for years committed,
and gladly accepted from him the boon that he now
offend them. He believed that the great boon that
would be given to the people by thjs measure would be
the determination of the law of settlement. That
would be. a great act of justice to the operative
classes. He believed that the measure was calculated
to improve the condition of the people, and he therefore
gave it his support.
Sir Tuomas D. ACLAND could not discover upon
what grounds the present measure had been brought
forward, and he should therefore give it his opposition.
The corn-law was not an oppressive law, and he did
not-see why it should be repealed.
Mr. B. BARING urged the immediate settlement of
this question, which, if suffered to go on, must become
a question of classes, and give rise to an agitation dan-
gerous to the existence of property itself. Let them
take warning by the Catholic question, and yield in
time.

On the • motion of Mr. C. BRUCE the debate was ad-
journed till to-morrow.
The other orders of the day were then disposed of,
and the House adjourned at Twelve o'clock.

Their Lordships met at Five o'clock.
Lora DACRE presented s petition in favour of
repeal of the corn-laws, but asking inquiry into the pro-
cevlings of the Anti-Corn-law League.

'.Chet Earl of KINNAIRD said that the Ana-Corn-law
League were only acting constitutionally, and courted
inquiry into their proceedings.
The Earl of ROSEBERY presente i a petition from
Linlithgow in favour of the total and immediate repeal
of the oorn-laws.

The Marquis of LANSDOWNE r ostponed the presenta-
tion of the petition, of a hich he had given notice, from
the colony
of Vas D iemen's Land, relative to the co; .
vide of that colony.
Lord BEAUMONT moved' pursuant to notice, for paper.
relative to the interference of
lEie
that
and France in the
affairs of Rio de la Plata. believed that nothing
vas more dangerous than sueth an
rthe interference hadinterference as had
H
taken place. e believed h
taken place for the support of aafsactgill and nothing else.
The Earl of ABERDEEN
w
Noble Lord had left the Eastern for theto:'tonly wicked
See that the
Western World.
ld
The war in the River de la Plate was n
but senseless. Everything had been done by E,g
tto put an end to such a fruitless warfare, but
effect. England and France were united on this subject,
having no other object in view but to unite all parties.
He could assure the House that on this subject the
United States disavowed the whole of the proceedings
of their agents. General Roils had made fresh pro-
posals un this subject ; they were not admissible at pre-
sent, but, he thought they would lead to the settlement
.of this question. Under these circumstances, he hoped
the Noble Lord would not press fur the production of

the papers.
After some observations from Lord COLCHESTER and
the Duke of WELLINGTON, the motion was withdrawn.
A message from the Commons brought up the Grand
Jury (Ireland) Presentment Bill and the Drainage (Ire-
land) Bill.

In answer to a question from Earl GREY, the Earl of
ST. GERMANS stated that on Monday next he should
state the grounds on which the Government justified the
rif...., Pitvt:!. introduction of the Bill with respect to the pacification
pr. 7--- , of Ireland.
4,„,:_&<-____„/ Several Bills were then forwarded a stage, and the
kf'''.s-!4'il', . -''''':. Houk. adjourned.
..., .4%: 1:;„
.-:,)":.•\-:; -
.0 ''l4;•:', -..'?---: - ~ ,"-74,13 house of Commons met at Four o'clock.
'. -,m....--..,_ -`..,/,:: ~arr. T. O'BRIEN took the oaths awl his seat for the
k..5....._
4....... .z.-<,.,.:/
~,, -. ~.r.,,..- „
Ai
~,tv,iy.,,,,, of Cashel.
ri --..,
-.."
1/41.

A respectable deputation from a portion of the Liberal
electors of Westminster waited upon us yesterday to corn
plain of some remarks which appeared in The Sun of
yesterday respecting the result of the election. The
considered that in these remarks an unjust imputation was
cast on the conduct and motives of the electors in their
opposition. to Captain Rous, asserted that only a small
number of protectionists voted for General EVANS, that
the motives which guided the Liberal electors were in
Perfect accordance with the principles which they had
long and conscientiously professed, and that nothing
was further from their views than to play
into the hands of the Dukes of NEWCASTLE, Rxcn-
MOND, and BUCKLNGETAM, for the purpose of arnnying
Sir R. PEEL, and throwing obstacles in the way of a
Government that had introduced measures approved
without exception by Whigs, Liberals, and Radicals.
We must state, first of all, that we never attributed to
the Liberal electors of Westminster any improper mo-
tives, and that it is impossible to draw any such con-
clusion from our remarks. We believe them to be as
firm and consistent in their principles as at any former
period, when Westminster stood forward repeatedly a;
one of the first and most powerful opponents of bribery,
corruption, and rotten boroughs; but, at the same time,
we blamed their policy in taking any steps which could
in the remotest degree embarrass Sir ROBERT PEEL'S
Government, or endanger the repeal of the most unjust
and most obnoxious of all laws that ever afflicted the
working classes of the United Kingdom. The corn-
law question was the one
rttavei i
nhi
:nlizoici
nthhat
ehwneheekept prominetly in
view, but we also had regard to the entire new tariff,
and to another measure which the liberal electors of
Westminster have strongly supported—a repeal of the
wicked and ruinous system by which the navy of
Eowmfneigafnakliarsentngederraehaat
besyr requiredb
alenepndoti
ovr sti :I:bit:0:i:: g controlled and crippled.
We considered the carrying of such vast naeavures
assertionz,
insu
place
pa:supporters
en
ordsf
;being
a n i 1
vindi-
cation of principles at a crisis when the hands of the
knowing that a general election was near, we thought it
infinitely better for the electors to wait for that event,
and in the meantime to cheer on the Minister, and aid
him in every possible way against the powerful resist.
ance of the House of Lords, and the general hostility of
the agrictiltural interest. Our object was to gain our

THE SUN, LONDON, FRIDAY MORNING, FEBRUARY 20) 1848.

point while we bad the opportunity, and not allow the
Libtrals to waite time in proving what could not be
disputed, their reverence for the great principles of civil
and religions liberty. There is a time for everything.

Lord Linea's, however, with a fervour of patriotism and
a staunchness of heart most commendable, is fighting
gallantly with the weapon of fact in the cause cf
the proposed freedom to commerce in that
nest of agricultural interest, S:uth Notting-
hamshire. From these circumstances we may
glean some most important deductions : first, that the
people art self-assured in their devotion to free-trade ;
secondly, that there is a general and reasonable expecta-
tion of a dissolution of the Parliament now sitting, and
that this expectation arises from the insane perversity
of the gentlem€n in favour of protection ;
thirdly, that the admirers of the Ministerial
proposition are husbanding their vigour for that great
and conc,usive effort; and, finally, that the ultimate abo-
lition of import and export duties is as utterly beyond a
doubt as that the skies of summer are blue, or that the
cowslips blossom in spring. With this knowledge the
nation must bide its time, in security. The millenium of
commerce L not a shibboleth—free-trade will be its as-

" A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush." We
wished to make our great purpose secure, to possess the
object within our reach, and not endanger the whole
by grasping at too much. It would require only a few
defeats like that of Westminster to weaken the authority
and power of Sir ROBERT PEEL. The Tory Lords re-
joice at it—all the high Tory journals have for days
been urging the Conservatives to vote for General
EVANS. Their pressing entreaties cannot have been in
vain, and would the defeat produce such rejoicing in the
" Church and State" camp unless it were regarded as a
heavy blow and great discouragement to Sir ROBERT
PEEL ? Suppose every liberal constituency bad the
same Occasion, and adopted the same policy as
Westminster, would Sir ROBKRT PEEL'S weight and
influence not be utterly destroyed both in the Lords and
Commons ? The Lords would reject the measure with
the utmost disdain, for it is his power only they fear ;
they would say, " We cannot submit to the dictation
of A lip. Corn law Leaguers and Radicals ; we will force
on en appeal to the country, and then it will be seen.
whether the affairs of this great nation aro to be go-
verned by illegal associations and destructives, or by the
principles dictated by our venerable Constitution. We
admit this is an extreme case, but still it is the
duty of journalists to resist evil at the beginning,
and to lend every assistance to a Minister whose
plans are unexceptionable, and who has sacrificed
political ties, personal frieniships, and his entire
authority as a Conservative leader for the purpose of
carrying great measures, which that journalist has,
in season and, out of season, advocated for the
last twenty years. Had The Sun followed any
other course, it might justly be branded as a
renegade, denounced as a brawler for principles which it
never expected to see accomplished, and charged with
the crime of rejecting the invaluable benefits for which
it had so faithfully contended, on the miserable pre-
tence that they were conferred by a Minis-
ter who was once a Tory. There would be
an utter want of honesty in such a plea. What we want,
and what the great body of the people want, are good
measures and good Government; for this purpose we have
supported Sir ROBERT PEEL, because we are
fully convinced that by weakening his authority and
thereby throwing a doubt on the noble un-
dertakings which have distinguished his Ministry,
we endanger in the most serious manner the accom-
plishment of objects dear to every friend of his
country. The loss of Captain Roe's for Westmin-
ster is great in another respect. It is a general
loss to the nation. lle is put into the
Admiralty as a naval reformer ; his services
every sailor, and every landsman too, will say are
much wanted ; and, without a seat in the House, he
might contend with his colleagues at the Board, and
state his reasons, but his work would ouly be
half done. The abuses in the navy would
still prevail to their utmost extent, and the
Minister might, in a fit of disappointment,
give up his scheme when he finds that the electors of
Westminster, so determinedly opposed to flogging in
the navy, and every other abuse in that great national
system of defence, appear lukewarm in the cause, and
have rejected the very man commissioned to investigate
these frightful abuses.

A t this particular stage of the present discussion, a cur-
sory surrey of the elections which are just now agitating
various constituencies throughout the kingdom, can
neither be uninteresting of uuinstructing ; since from
these local seethings-up of the political cauldron, the
different ingredients may be, inferred. We do not
ascribe any immediate importance to these po-
pular expressions of sentiment. ; wo consider them
only valuable as harbingers of an inevitable,
an ultimate, and a permanent demonstration: we regard
them as efficacious in disseminating those doctrines of
liberality and enlightenment with which the commercial
and political, and even social world, must henceforth be
governed ; we estimate them as of exceeding import-
ance inasmuch as they are indications of that earnest
co-operation on the part of the multitude, without
which the admirable policy of the Premier can exer-
cise but a portion 'of its generous and benign in-
fluence. Any additions to the number of free-
traders in the Lower House is but of secondary interest
at this juncture : the necessity of a general election
w:thin a very short period from the present time—possi-
bly within two montht,—rendering the advocates of the
proposed measures almost indifferent to the result of
mere individual struggles. The necessity of a general
election to which we make this reference, is, of course,
contingent upon the perseverance of what Sir CHARLES
NAPIER almost christened the " turnip .headed " Pres-tee-
' tionists in appealing to the sense of the country before
such measures be passed into a decree. It is not our in-
tention to comment upon this preposterous scheme of
the non-suited agriculturists ; it is not our intention to
stigmatise it as an alternative which must, if resorted
to, prove a most pernicious precedent—en alternative
diametrically opposed to the principles of our legislation.
The naked proposition is itself, like the tatterdemalion
regiment of FALSTAFF—" a troop of impotency"—their
lank forms as urifleshed and as harmless as
their "swords of lath and daggers of shaving."
Never did a class testify such mad incufficency—such
monstrous aptitude fur the ridiculous ; its leaders have
placed themselved in a situation of the most unenviable
absurdity. They behold their stronghold Monopoly
about to be committed to destruction, its innermost re-
cesses undermined, the train laid down, the fusee
lighted ; and now, in the very frenzy of their
disappointment, they become little less than de-
lirious—they insist upon themselves descending
into the excavations—they furiously demand the power
of seating themselves upon the barrels of gunpowder
before those combustibles are ignited. This, in sober
reality, is the sum total of their cry for an appeal to the
sense of the populace ; they are enraged at their exclu-
sive system being exploded ; they will not remain con-
tented until they themselves are also " blown up " most
thoroughly. In these diseased sentiments originates the
expectation of a general election ; and from that dull and
stolid pertinacity which is peculiar only to Pigs and
Protectionists, and to which the latter have recently ex-
hibited their affection, there is but a very trivial
probability of the abolition principles being passed
through both Houses of Parliament until they have
been formally submitted to the voice of the great
political under-current—the people. It is from a
conviction of this circumstance that sundry con-
stituencies, such for example as the constituency of
Chichester, have reserved their enthusiasm for the
oncoming outburst of the nation ; and in this manner
some two or three proteges of the landlord clique have
found an opportunity of sneaking through the lobby of
St. Stephen's, and seating themselves (right worshipful
and right worthy associates) cheek-by-jowl with such
scape-grace unfortunates as the Member for Bristol, or
the Member for Oxford. In some instances,
however, -the earnestness of the electors in ap-
proving Sir ROBERT'S very startling behaviour,
has exceeded Weir carelt ssness of a mere momentary
victor ; they have given their opponents a slight
flavour of the unpalateable draught which they are con.
coning fur themselves, and with which—so sure as they
clamber up the various hustings—they will be drenched
and saturated. Such a bitter fort taste fur these luckless
sticklers for the corn-duty, was the return—the proud, the
triumphant, and unanimous return— ogeord MeRPETH for
the West Riding of Yol kahire. Possibly a few more simi-
lar demonstrations nculd be ertoue:h to sicken the mal-
contents of any further repetition of the dose : however,
the endeavour is scarcely worth the trouble of making.
For, although a dissolution of the present Parlia-
ment would be, to a certain limit, detrimental to the
, interests of our poorer countrymen, by delaying the
settlement of the question under discussion, the sub-
sequent success of the free traders—a success of which
no sane person can entertain the merest scintilla of a
doubt—will be trebly glorious; it will impart to the Act
in which those principles will be embodied a wonderful
and indefinable charm—it will be gold purified through
an ordeal of fire. Of that description of careless com-ti-
tuency which we have already particularised—careless
of its own quiescent -but Herculean strength, and
indifferent to the ephemeral triumph of its antagonists—
Gloucestershire promises to afford another specimen ;
tor, although the Hon. F. CHARTERIS, the young Mem-
ber who recently resigned his seat as the representative
of that county, from the late alteration in his opinions,
and upon whom the Prime Minister uttered, the other
evening, such a fervent panegyric--although, we say,
the Ilon. F. CHARTERIS would be unanimously elected
for that identical division, the Liberal party are re-
serving their vigour until the arrival of the
great struggle which is foreseen—and the Marquis of
WORCESTER, the heir to the BEAUFOkT possessions,
will in all likelihood be permitted, according to the
cant phrase, to " walk over the course." Dorsetshire,
in like manner, is partially abandoned by Lord .ARECLEY ;
the Noble Lord doubtless awaiting the fitter and the
loftier opportunity. Thus again Rutland was for the
present contemptuously left to the private and
obscure nomination and the private and obscure
election of a certain Mr. GEORGE FINCH, a
humdrum small-talker in .favour of " protection to
I British agriculture." Captain HOWARD VYSE likewise
offers him-elf as candito for South Northampton-
shire amidst the silence and indifference of the mass.