The Sun.
London, England, 1846-06-22 00:00:00

......._....... ,
fe
I.r
ei. 4
A , 0
I: ,0' i 6,: .-4
.-, .4'.. ~ ' ' , ‘
4414 4 7;3::-;•'' ____.
- : ,t,
:". • ----.

filaililtff

LONDON, MONDAY, JUNE 22, 1346.

The last of the amendments was on Friday nega-
Art It Avod in the House of Lords without a division, and
/14 'Agittraqw the pleasing task of communicieing
:----V—#lcinsizlic the gratifying intelligence that the
bra loporiation Bill has gone through the Corn-
mitt. uutiodihed and unaltered, and that it has been
tea witliout amendments. On Tuesday night it
. 7

:-;

1 s

will be read a third time, and from thenceforward anew
era of prosperity throughout the country, revived
and increased demand for manufactures, commercial
activity, and universal employment, will attest the
blessings attendant on trade free and unfettered by
drawback or restriction. The Duke of RICHMOND
brought forward the last and the most untenable of the
amendments by which the great measure was at-
tacked in the House of Lords, but his Grace, although
he declined to withdraw the amendment, prudently
omitted a division, because, as he himself said, he
did not see what advantage there would be in being
beaten by a majority of thirty-three or thirty-four,
or perhaps forty, of their Lordships ; and as he did
not see any possibility of carrying this clause, he was
anxious not further to discredit their Lordships in the
eyes of the country. We must do his Grace the justice
of acknowledging the candour of this admission,
and the prudence of the course adopted : the opinions
o
of the large majority of their Lordships had been too
clearly expressed, too unequivocally
at displayed,wulwould
be t
h toe
allow any doubt to exist as to
result of a division, particularly on a point on which
the Protectionists themselves were not united. On
either of the other propositions there was at least the
probability of obtaining the support of some of the
Noble Lords who had voted for the second reading
and were friendly to the general principle of the
measure; yet on both points a clear majority of 33,
being an addition of 21 to the majority actually pre-
sent when the second reading was carried, affirmed
the Ministerial policy. The proposition of the Duke
of BUCKINGHAM was for the continuance of the
shadow of protection, conceded for a short period,
in order to enable the parties interested to make their
preparations for the new state of circumstances which
would arise on the abolition of all restrictive duties.
Small as was the measure of protection which would
be thereby retained, it was objectionable as partaking
of the obnoxious principle, and it was without hesi-
tation negatived by the free-traders. The
Earl of Wics.Low's suggestion was a more practical
one, and might possibly have been supported by
many, hostile to all commercial restriction. It was
founded on the necessity of raising a tax for the pur-
poses of revenue, and not of protection, and this,
coupled with the moderate amount of the proposed
duty, actually induced a Nobleman, who stated that
he had ever been opposed to the corn-laws, and had
voted in favour of the Bill, to give his support
to the amendment; the real object, however, was seen
through, that the plan objected to by almost every
one who spoke on the Protectionist side of the House
was only brought forward with the intention of
securing such votes, and destroying the measure to
which the success of any amendment in the House of
Peers would be fatal, it being a money Bill, which their
Lordships cannot alter, and can only affirm or reject in
the same state that it came up from the Commons. This
therefore also was rejected by a like majority of 33.
It is impossible to estimate sufficiently the confusion,
the litigation which must inevitably have taken
place if the Duke of RICHMOND had succeeded
in his object. He would have opened a fer-
tile source of dissension and such expensive legal
proceedings, that the Noble Duke might well
feel hampered, as another FRANKENSTEIN, at
the monster he had called into existence.
There would be one class, and one only, be-
nefited by such litigation. The lawyers would
indeed reap a rich and abundant harvest, and
would swallow up the full value of the improvements,
and perhaps something more. A shell would be the
result to each of the litigants, the landlord and the
tenant—the oyster would be the lawyer's fee on the
occasion. The only ground on which his
Grace's motion could possibly be supported, even
by the Protectionists would be that its success would
be destructive of the measure. His Grace, however,
saw the feeling of the House, and was contented to
use it as a means of giving him one speech more in
opposition to the Government. The free-traders, now
secure in the adoption of the measure, scarcely trouble
themselves to reply to the reiterated and fifty times
repeated arguments, but content themselves with
giving silent votes. But a few days, and the stately
vessel, whose course hitherto has been propitious,
attended with fair and favouring gales, will have
reached its harbour, and the people will be in the
enjoyment of the highly-prized blessings with which
it was freighted.

Whatever may be conceded to the excitement inci-
dent to important Parliamentary discussions, there
are limits of vituperation and personality beyond
which—and we pronounce this under the correction
of that illustrious man, Mr. Fox—it is unwise, un-
courteous, unjust, and most thoroughly invidious to
proceed. That limit has been exceeded during the
present session ; and let us inquire for an instant in
what manner. Exasperated by the overthrow of a
thousand cherished anticipations, the Protectionists
have, through the instrumentality of their most
prominent leaders, retarded a measure bearing
upon the legislation of the sister-island, and
diverged from the great public interests sub-
mitted to their decision, to charge with a
grievous political delinquency the Minister under
whose auspices their recent discomfiture has been
effected ! That alone would render the disinte-
restedness of their behaviour suspicious. But this
consideration, which bears about it such a
dubious impartiality, is as nothing in eliciting
our surmises in comparison with the corol-
lary of the fact. When it is observed that
the delinquency to which we are making allusion
transpired, not yesterday, but nineteen years ago;
that it was endeavoured to be substantiated by two
very fallible newspaper reports of a speech delivered
at that remote period ; and that, until this most
critical juncture of parties, the circumstances on which
those charges were concentrated were never
hinted at, even by inuendo or by the
veriest insinuation of a significant adjective, but
that this identical Minister had been incessantly
treated and designated as the " Right Honourable
Friend" of those who were now holding his character
up to public opprobrium as the assassinator of CAN-
NI:KG—what was hitherto matter of suspicion,
immediately stood forth a matter of the most
absolute certainty. The whole imputation
was a mere chimera of indignation, raked out of tar-
nished papers, and sustained by jaundiced memories.
It was a phantom evoked by the agriculturists, and
IT the parade of which they had fondly imagined so
to render the past conduct of the Premier detestable
it the eyes of the people, as to foil the glory of his
present proceedings, as to filch from him that large
proportion of popularity which he has latterly acquired.
Every one felt morally assured of this on a scrutiny of
the naked facts; and hence the explanation given,
overnight, by Sir ROBERT PEEL, was altogether
supererogatory ; it was altogether a gratuitous con-
tradiction of the charges levelled at his reputation.
The voice of the Commons accorded him by acclamation
the praise of a decisive vindication. Lord J. Bars-
Cam, pronounced the assertions of the Noble Member
for Lynn as utterly unsustained by data, while he
tantained, that, by his statement of that evening, Sir
"
Ro" Ilaa " triumphantly cleared his character
from. tufte Ira • •
new
zn.Mr. GorLBuRN
n asseveratioetincsitoyf_tl_othteheFidres.t
corroborated the Pat: ainn;a:
Lord of the Trims
such were possibleu,l7; and' by so loinP• gave, if
clarations of his colleague
in commenting upon the discussion,l declared VILLIBRs'
and it to b,
his opinion, that " those attacks, instead of damaginc„
in the
the Right Hon. Barbolniect.,,, iNiotuwlderbeultiteezarallltyhira
estimation of the pu more than
d
superfluous to analyse
to thtehenarturerme
ioefr,thaenddewlinhqicuhenhez
which was impute
own
malreadyauent 1 been,y s
shattered,"
emphatic language, " per.
Sir ROBERT PEEL'S addressor oth .
especially wheenutohuespeerwuislall
soof
atitnerehdi,s"
explicitly elucidate the pr.isetinbgearmg
personal discussion. In directing
especially
that address, we would, moreover, s
attention o f thtios
observe that its chief characteristic is the most indis-
putable guarantee for the accuracy of its sentiments
—we mean the characteristic of intentional sim-
plicity. Desirous only of vindicating himself from
a series of the most flagitious aspersions, and avoid-
ing the slightest ',tendency to retaliation, the Prime
Minister there confines himself to the enumeration of
occurrences and the exposure of fallacies—he appeals
to our common sense, not to our sympathies or our
passions. He purPoselY divulges his thoughts with
the extreme of oratorical poverty—not like his assail-
ant, coven k.g a specious and attenuated argument
with the meretricious ciiPorations of rhetoric and the