The Sun.
London, England, 1846-06-05 00:00:00

elitenino

LONDON, FRIDAY, JUNE 5, 1846.

The House of lords met to-day for the first time
after the Whitsuntide recess.
Numerous petitions were presented in favour of and
ag,ainst the repeal of the norn-laws.
Lord STANLEY, in Presenting several petitions from
Wilts and Cornwall against the repeal of the corn-laws,
gave notice of his intention to-morrow to move ft)]
copies of the addresses that had been received from
the Legislative Assemblies of Canada on the subject of
the corn-laws.

The Earl of DALHOUSIE then defended himself agains
the attack that had been made upon him in the Hoes.
of Commons by Lord George Bentinck with respect t,
the addresses from Canada, which led to a short bill
animated debate.

Earl FITZWILLIAM gave notice of his intention to
morrow to move certain resolutions with respect to Rail
way Bills.

The Earl of DALHOUSIS then moved the second read

ing of the Customs' Duties (Tariff) Bill. The NOW..
Earl entered at considerable length into the duties that
at present existed, and those which it was proposed t(
reduce by the present measure.

The Duke of RICH3IOND opposed the Bill.
The Earl of WICKLOW opposed the Bill, as being
prejudicial to the linen trade of Ireland.

Earl GREY, although he deprecated continual changes
accepted the present measure as a step in the right
direction.

Lord ASHBURTON opposed the Bill, and expressed hi-
surprise that the commerce of the country WiLS able t.
stand up against the continual changes that had beet.
made and proposed of late years.

Lord MONTEACLE supported the second reading oi
.he

The Bill was then read a second time, and ordered to
be committed on Monday week,

The Explosive Substances Bill went through Com
mitten, and their Lordships adjourned.

'hatever apprehensions were formed as to the
pertinacity of opposition with which the Protectionist
Lords might endeavour to clog the passage of Sit
ROBERT PEEL'S policy, by objections or emenda-
tions, they must now be fully exonerated from
all further suspicion. We believe we have already
broached the opinion (and we must be permitted
to broach it again), that the behaviour of those
amongst our aristocracy who uphold the doctrine
of protection to agriculture forms a very agree.
able antithesis to that which regulated the dis-
cussion of their colleagues in the Lower house
of Parliament. Where one has evidenced an almost
interminable glibness of hostility, the other has re-
stricted itself to the most epigrammatic antagonism
Night after night, week after week, month after
month, the deba!e lagged through the Commons, the
arguments (if with such an epithet they could be
dignified) drawn out to the most squeamish tenuity
and yet oration following oration with the same
undeviating and unflagging perseverance. The
progress, however, which these same measures have
already made through the Upper House has been sig-
nalised by a conciseness as remarkable as the preced-
ing procrastination of the representatives. Pre-
cipitation and superfluous objections have been
equally avoided ; and, casting aside all those
extraneous allusions which had elsewhere in-
terfered with the Parliamentary proceedings,
their Lordships have confined themselves within
the extremest limits of the question. Both the
Corn Importation Bill and the Customs' Duties Bill
were immediately allowed to pass the first reading
without any attempt whatever at a division, and with
scarcely a dissentient voice. For the second reading
of the former three nights alone sufficed, while for
the second reading of the latter a few hours on the
very first night of their meeting after Whit-
suntide proved sufficient. Such a conscien-
tious and sensible subservience to the dictates
of prudence may be variously attributed—to the
exhaustion of debate upon the subject—to the warn
ing impotence of the fierce and almost spasmodic
labours of their associates in the Commons—to a
truckling spirit in the majority and a sense of hope-
lessness in the minority ; but to whichever of
these conclusions we may arrive the public
will entertain sentiments of enduring thank-
fulness to the Peers for the reasonable
mode of opposition they have adopted in the consi-
deration of these momentous alterations. There is
one other difference observable between the manner
in which both
peculiarityn eid to
Douses
f of
st a
arrny, havee treated the matter at issue,
publica
then d
morecharacter uponin ci
thewhich difference we are
szeiinnegntthmateimh
it ienrvolovfes
thethe
aristocracy, and wllehe unanimous was
a
juesristfi.catOiounr
p
pronounced overnighton°
by
plause of his peers and of his compeers.
allu-
sion cannot be extremely problematic to any one
who has glanced through the discussion which pre-
ceded the second roeafdliinzicohf
dtihsecuCssuiosntomthse'
EDaurtligos
Bill,
of the opportunity of
D AWL: tionu st thEe
course
most distinctly himselfavailed
him in the House of Common
F,
tly repudiating the: iimmpmutedatiiaotneslycaasnttuerpioonr
TtOiNtchKe
.WThihtsousentiimdepuNt-aactaiotinosn:
wlyieLhoarmd
amounted
dGE
voluntary and temporary suppression of official papers
from Canada of a disposition inimical to free trade, were
proved by the Noble Earl to have been altogether with-
out f,undation, to have been totally illusory, to have
been egregiously fallacious—and he proved this, more-
over, by a simple comparison of dates and calcu-
lation of distances. The difference, therefore,
which wo here perceive between the conduct of the
representative protectionist and hereditary protec-
tionist, and the existence of which we are endeavour-
ing to illustrate, is simply a predisposition in the
former for the detection of some personality
by which the character of his antagonist may
be placed in an invidious light ; and in the
latter, a careful suppression of all tendencies