The Sun.
London, England, 1841-03-01 00:00:00

SPIRIT of the PUBLIC JOURNALS.

FROM THE EVENING PAPERS OF SATURDAY.
(Front the Globe.)
We regard the vote of the House of Commons as a
virtual decision that Parliament will not legislate, on
ra,ional questions, either for party interests, or on
party pretext;. IL is a party interest (undeniably) that
the Irish repreientatton should be kept under ; it is•
a party pretext that the Irish registration must be
immediatly purged, without t eierence to cry con-
siderations beside that object. Tice cry of Irish
majorities and Irish dictation to Government, is
most unwisely reitera•ed by the organs of Opposi-
tion, us a proof cf sinister interest, on this subject,
in the party in poser, aot as a motive for the
British public to unite for their ov.--rthrow. It is
avowed as a sufficient ground against Ministerial policy,
that the warm support of Ireland enables it to with-
stand powerful opposition here—the oppos:fon of
deep.rooted interest;, and territorial influe ices—highly
respectable doubtless, but still hardy identical with the
public voice. 'We have said a hundred timer', and re-
peat, that we wish not to see them subverted—we regard
them as an ingredient of permanence in the frame of
our Government. But still kss should we wish to see
then aggressive on popular powers, whale% er these
arc exercised not entirely a; suits their convenience.
There must be a compromise betNeen the older and the
more recent political influences. Neither one nor the
other can triumph abseluttly, without danger to the
State. We do not hesitate to say, we should look for
immediate danger from the unchecked progress of such
general views as Mr. Hume's or Mr. O'Conneli's.
But we should equally look for danger, net perhaps
much more remote, from the rerewed ascendant of furi-
ously opposite principles. A great part of the English
public is riot yet fully aware of the very peculiar and de-
licate management required in our conduct towards Ire-
land. Englishmen are anything rather than hostile to that
country ; and they do riot sufficiently make allowance for
the hostile feeling on the other side. To be a popular leader
in Inland, Mr. O'Connell embraces, or expresses, that
hostility ; or, if hostility is too hard a word, at least ilia:
habitual alienation. Mr. O'Connell ingeniously throws
the imputw ion on us ; but the sentiment is only
extensivey felt on the c ther sate. It is true that
there are enemies of Irish popular interest here ;
and it is true that their representations take
same effect on a part of the pubLe, but these are
only the mauraise einene of a party no longer ascendant ;
and the effect which they produce is against a bugbear
of Popery, rather than Ireland. Even that effect is
every day diminishing ; and, with due reference to Mr.
O'Connell, we cannot but say that his own way of
speaking occasionally can alone reanimate c)p-ring pre-
judice.

(From the Standard.)
The four days' debate upon Lord Morpeth's Bill,
as reported in the newspapers, would, if collected,
form a very thick octavo volume. Of such a mass
it is impossible to give even a meagre analysis in the
space that we can afford. Such an analysis is, how-
ever, happily unnecessary, as the speeches of Sir William
Follett and Sir Robert Peel exhaust the whole subjeci
in relation to the law as wed as to the policy of the
Ministerial proposition. These speeches, which the pub-
lic judgment has pronounced the best of the debate,
has e nut yet met with even an attempt at an answer ;
and they must go to the country, not merely as triumphs
of reasoning and eloquence, but as the expression of
irresistible truth. It is no discredit to Lord Stanley,
Mr. Litton, and other excellent speakers on the sae
side, that all who stand for the existing ConstitutionNrilbam
rest their cause upon the arguments of Sir I
Fclictt and Sir Robert Peel.
ment by the Ministerial party of any' e efforto
the main principle of their .Bil, The
total
to defend
awe believe, a case
without example. But it was the
of the anomaly of tacking
necessary result
a e great constitutional
a measure of
The details o
regulation.
change to what ought to
be re
of
the
mregistyrY might afford
one e or e.
h and
ground for plausible argument o
sid
were argued by
et ri speakerstherefore the Mithni:
theycmpetent assiduity, but the re-
duction of. the qualification from a 10/. beneficial iiitcrest
with
o
at
to a 5/. t2nantcy without any interest, was a proposi-
tion essential), too simple to be perplexed by any arC-
fice, too
audaciously wicked to admit of any justifica-
tion. There was nothing but the tmitit impudent
falsehood, that the reduction was necessary to the
amendment of the registry, which could be advanced ,
and this pretext Sir Wi ham Follett disposed of so early
in the debate, as to shame the later Ministerial
speakers from resorting to it, although we see same of
• the Whig-Radical Journals ,till
cling to the exploded
absurdity.

(From the Courier.)
The Chrol,i. k this m,rning is senitnentally sllcrnn
about the division on Lord Mor eth's Bill. It takes