The Sun.
London, England, 1846-06-20 00:00:00

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
of the large majority of their Lordships had been too
clearly expressed, too unequivocally displayed to
allow any doubt to exist as to what would be the
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
tAlienxisitNeorinaAforM was
Ministerial The
propositioncontinu
continuance
theee of
tDukehe
of
nthe
shadow of protection, conceded far 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 WICKLOW 'A 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 opposes 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 an.endment 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 ho 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, oven
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
)f 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
chousand 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-
mitte.d to their aecision, 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-
NING—what was hitherto matter _of suspicion,
immediately stood forth a matter of the most
absolute certainty. The whole imputation
was mere chimera of indignation, raked out of tar-
nished papers, and sustained by jaundiced memories.
It was a phantom evoked by the agriculturists, and,
by the parade of which they had fondly imagined so
to render the past conduct of the Premier detestable
in 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.
Svery one felt morally assured of this on a scrutiny of
the naked facts; and hence the explanation given,
overnight, by Sir ROUERT PEEL, was altogether
supererogatory ; it was altogether a gratuitous con-
tradiction of the charges levelled at his reputation.
l'he voice of the Commons accorded him by acclamation
the praise of a decisive vindication. Lord J. Rus-
lELL pronounced the assertions of the Noble. Member
Or Lynn as utterly unsustained by data, while he
maintained, that, by his statement of that evening, Sir
ROBERT had " triumphantly cleared his character
r'roin these imputed slurs-". Mr. GOULBURN
corroborated the solemn asseverations of the First
Lord of the Treasury, and, by so doing, gave, if
such were possible, a new authenticity to the de-
.2larations of his Colleague ; while Mr. VILLIERS,
in commenting upon the discussion, declared it to be
his opinion, that " those attacks, instead of damaging
the Right Hon. Baronet, would but exalt him in the
,:stimation of the public." It were literally more than
superfluous to analyse the nature of the delinquency
which was imputed to the Premier, and which has
jartritatlcmymtattdi'
"I"e*R4y been; in his own emphatic language, " per•
especially when the perusal of
address
explicitly. to the House will so
personal discussion.e
precise bearings of this
L hat address, we would'
moreovertention to
~bserve that its chief chaeacteriuk izthe especially
putable guarantee for the accuse most indis-
3, of its sentiments
—we mean the characteristic of intentional elm
plicity. Desirous only of vindicating himself frog,
flag
aspersions, and avoid-
;t series of the most flao
ing the slightest
tendency to retaliation, the Prime
.qinister there confines }lnns
• elf 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 divu • lges his thoughts wit'
the extreme of oratorical poverty—not like his assail-
;i:it, covering a specious and attenuated argument
ith the meretricious decorations of rhetoric and the

tawdry tinsel of iocoseness. Among other things,

the Premier demonstrated that he did not change hip

opinion on the Catholic question in 1825, or intimate

such a conversion to Lord LIVERPOOL (proving this
blerentially by private letters, and pus tively

by references to the reported debates) —that
he did not, in 1829, make a declaration of his

past alteration of opinion on the same subject
(proving this by the reports of HANSARD, " the
Morning Post, Morning Chronicle, Morning Herald,
a:ld the Morning Journal, in opposition to the reports
of the Times and of the Mirror of Parliament,
which latter he showed to be an acknowledged tran-
script from the Times), and especially demonstrated
the fallacy of that most scurrilous, of all
imputations " upon his yeracity as a man, and his 1