The Sun.
London, England, 1848-06-23 00:00:00

stone ?Do Hume and Cobden ? What was Lord El-
don's grandfather ? What Sir R. Pee l's? What Lord
Melbourne's ? Why, the most super •ficia/ knowledge
of the most recent history might inlbre a man that, so
far from the aristocracy oppressing or let3eping down the
people, no class since the brightest pe.riod of Roman
policy has been so elastic, so adoptive, and so po-
pular, as the aristocracy al England. Well, under
such rule as we have had, we have suffered
from wars, and the cost of wars. We have so; and what
is the inference? That the aristocracy are accountable
for a great waste of blood and treasure. Is this quite
just? Let any one who wishes to know the truth consult
the annals of the 2d and 3d George. Walpole driven
from power—not by faction, but by the people—for pa-
cific counsels; Chatham supported by the voice of the
people as a "great war Minister;" Pitt, struggling in
vain for peace, egged on by the approbation of a national
majority to an obstinate war with France;--shese are the
instances which history supplies of aristocratic!, oppresai on
and love of war. For the interference of this; same &ass
in the pacific policy of past generations, we must look to
the despotism which inflicted the omniscient genitui of
Burke, the sparkling wit of Sheridan, the gotgeous de-
clamation and statesmanlike acuteness of Pitt; the com-
bined wit, eloquence, and logic of Craning, tb e judicial
impressiveness of Grant, and the fervid eloquence of
Brougham upon a House of Commons which, but for
men like these, would have left no track of light be-
hind ; and when we remember that these men are gone
from the scene of their glory and their achievements
with scarely a successor or an equal, let us potsder
un
the wisdom which rails at the past, and would cut up
the traditionary landmarks of England into departments
for hireling agitation and the display of such enlightesn-
ment as Mr. Hume and Mr. Bright afford.
HERALD.—Probably it may be fairly objected, that
we have no right to feel or express any disappoinnxient
with reference to the First Report of the Select Ocm-
mittee on Commercial distress. Having been pleenly
told, from the beginning, that the whole affair wtas a
sham ; that the results of the " inquiry " were fiddly
known before the Committee had once met ; and ahat
the only real object of the Government in granting the
Committee was, to turn some gentlemen into an upper
room there " to exhaust their garrulity,"—having been
warned more than once, that this was the real and. the
only drift of the whole affair, we may be held to be
" estopped " from any complaint, that the said Com-
mittee has not done, what it was never intended or pro-
mised that it should do. Nevertheless it is certain that
unfairness cannot be fairly worked out. The original
plan and purpose might be bad, but the performance is,
if possible, still worse. Suppose that a City house,
Messrs. A. B. and Co., is charged with an unfair pro-
ceeding. " Let the matter be submitted to any three
respectable persons, as arbitrators,"—it may be said.
But what would be thought, if Messrs. A. B. and Co.
insisted upoa it that the three arbitrators should
consist of-1, their broker, 2, their attorney, and 3,
some indifferent person, to be named by the complaining
party? The matter in dispute on the present occasion
was the working of the Bank Restriction Acts, more
especially of the Act of 1844. That Act was the work
of Sir Robert Peel; it had been warmly approved by
the present Chancellor of the Exchequer; and it we.s
the declared purpose of the Government to maintain it.
And who, then, were the arbiters to decide this ques-
tion between the leaders of the late and present Govern-
ment—both committed to the measure—and the com-
mercial world, which uttered loud complaints of the
working of that Bill? The Committee nominated con-
sisted of twenty-six Members. And thus it was cone.
stituted:-
1. The Chancellor of the Exchequer.
2. Lord John Russell.
3. Mr. Labouchere.
4. Sir W. Clay.
Here are three leading members of the Government,
and a subordinate. Next,
5. Sir Robert Peel.
6. Sir James Graham.
7. Mr. Goulburn.
8. Mr. Cardwell.
Being four members of the last Government, whose
measure was under examination. Then,
9. Mr. Home Drummond.
10. Mr. Beckett.
Two regular Peelites; and
it
ocs
fa, r
adt
hto
11. Mr. Cobden.
12. Mr. Thornely.
the
starting,L eag.
of
saThus o
votes;
Threecomm itlmt3iemAlcboernr.ssßis
may be relied on. Then comes Mr. Tennent7loownf whose
name never occurs in any one of the divisions, and
whose absence, from whatever cause it arose, makes the
thirteen a sure majority. Next we hare Mr. James
Wilson, who is currently held to be either in possession
or in expectation of a place, and now we see that the
result is easily to be reckoned on before the Committee
begins its work. But now, who are the other members
of this Committee? Here are their names:
16. Mr. Harries.
17. Mr. Cayley.
18. Mr. Glyn.
19. Mr. F. T. Baring.
20. Mr. Thomas Baring.
21. Lord George Bentinok.
22. Mr. Spooner.
23. Mr. Disraeli.
24. Mr. Hudson.
25. Mr. Hume.
26. Alderman Thompson.
And we beg to ask, whether the real strength, the prac-
tical utility of the Committee, did not consist entirely
iu these last eleven names? Well, then, what is to be
said, when we find the official men and their retainers
always voting on one side, and the eleven independents
always voting on the other? Here is the first division,
May 26:

AYES.
Mr. T. Baring
Lord G. Bentinck
Mr. Spooner
Mr. Herries
Mr. Cayley
Mr. Alderman Thompson
Mr. Hudson
Mr. Hume
Mr. Disraeli
Mr. Glyn
Mr. James Wilson

Noss.
Chancellor of the Exchequer
Sir James Graham
Sir Robert Peel
Lord John Russell
Mr. Cobden
Mr. Beckett
'Mr. Goulburn
Mr. Cardwell
Mr. Labouchere
Mr. J. L. Ricardo
Mr. Thornely
Sir W. Clay
,11r. Home Drummond.
May 30:—

Here is the second division,
AYES.
Chancellor of the Exchequer
Sir James Graham
Sir Robert reel
Lord John Russell
Mr. Cobden
Mr. Beckett
Mr. Goulburn
Mr. Labouchere
Mr. Thornely
Mr. James Wilson
Sir W. Clay
Mr. Home Drummond
And here is one of the last divisions, June 6:---
NOES.
Lord George Bentinek
'Mr. Spooner
Mr. Beckett
Mr. Cayley
Mr. Alderman Thompson
Mr. Hudson
Mr. Hume
'Mr. Disraeli
Mr. Glyn
Mr. James Wilson.
Mr. Home Drummond

NOES.
Mr. Thomas Baring
Lord George Bentinek
Mr. Spooner
Mr. Herries
Mr. Cayley
Mr. Alderman Thompson
Mr. Hudson
Mr. Hume
Mr. Disraeli
Mr. Glyn.

AYES.
Chancellor of the Exchequer

Sir James Graham
Sir Robert Peel

Lord John Russell

Mr. Cobden

Mr. Goulburn

Mr. Cardwell

Mr. Labouchere

Mr. J. L. Ricardo

Mr. Thornely

Sir W. Clay

Thus, throughout, it is the official men—the 'very
parties who were on their trial, Who bear down by their
packed majority the whole of the independent members
of the Committee. The packing of the witnesses, too, was
as gross as the packing of the Committee. Mr. Cayley
made this the subject of a specific resolution, morel by
him on the 6th of June, in the following terms:—" An-
other amendment was proposed to be made, by adding
at the end of the paragraph these words—' The evidence
of all the witnesses engaged in commercial undernik-
ings (except the Deputy-Governor of the Bank), is
liclaaimous as to the disastrous effects of the Act of
1844. Four witnesses, indeed, out of seventeen, have
defended the system on which that Act was founded;
but of these four one is generally believed to be the
author of the system, another was the Governer of the
Bank, consulted by the framer of the Act of 1344, and
the remaining two are the present Governor and Deputy-
Governor of the Bank. It appears, however, that the
opinion of the Bank directors is nearly balanced as to
the successful working of the Act of 1844." This
amendment, though containing merely an undeniable
statement of facts, was not allowed to pass. The truth
was too inconvenient to be thus plainly spoken. The
result of the whole we are content to give in the
words of a Ministerial journal of last night:—" The
first report from the Secret Committee of the Commons
upon commercial distress has been commented upon with
much interest to-day, and as a large number of practical
men in the City desire a change, much disappointment
is expressed that none is recommended by the Commit-
tee." The disappointment, as we have said, may be
natural, but it only proves the want of foresight in those
who feel it.

REDUCTION OF THE DUTIES ON RUM.—A
tation from a meeting of Irish Members waited on the
Chancellor of the Exchequer yesterday, on the subject
of the proposed reduction of the differential duty on
rum. A long discussion took place between the members
of the deputation and the Chancellor of the Exchequer,
but no definite result being arrived at, it was resolved at
at a meeting of the Irish Members subsequently held,
that Sir Lucius O'Brien should,in the House, demand EL,
declaration of the intentions of the Government. It
will be seen, from our Parliamentary report, that the
question was put, but no answer returned beyond the
vague assertion that the matter was " under consi-
deration."

REVIEW OF THE SECOND LIFE GUARDS.—The re-
view of the 2d Life Guards, which was lately postponed,
owing t ) the fatiguing duty the corps were compelled to
undergo during the Chartist disturbances, is definitely
fixed to take p'sle to-morrow, in the presence of several
royal personages and a brilliant staff of officers. The
regiment will be on the ground in Hyde-park, opposite
Grosvenor-gate, at noon precisely.
The Duke and Duchess of Norfolk, Countess of
Lincoln and family, Lord and Lady Beresford, Marchio-
ness Cornwallis, Lady de Burgh, Marchioness of Clan-
Heard., Lord Al o zutcharles, Lady Hogg and piny, Hon.
Mrs. Hamilton, Hon. Miss Dillon, &c., visited the Colos-
seum, Regent's-park, on Tuesday last.
SAGO FLoutt.—An arrival of 3,492 bags of sago
flour has taken place by one vessel, arrived from Singa-
pore, and another from the same place has brought
nearly 3,000 bags of the article. These are unusually
large importations of this description of flour from the
place mentioned and are of interest.;