The Sun.
London, England, 1851-02-14 00:00:00

t I I I
t „Ant

..7 - --
LONDON, FRIDAY, FEBRUARY 14, 1851.

In the House of Lords,
Lord CAMPBELL brought in a Bill to amend the law
of criminal procedure.
Lord BROUGHAM withdrew his County Court Exten-
sion Bill, and introduced an amended measure.
Several petitions were presented, and their Lordships
adjourned.
In the Commons,
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER announced that
,he •ahnuld bring forward bis budget on Monday, should
the debate on the Papal aggression be finished, but not
otherwise.
The adjourned debate on Mr. DISRAELI'S motion was
resumed by
The Marquis of GRANBY, ;who denied that the agri.
cultural distress was of a mere temporsry character
' only, and attributed it entirely to free trade.
Sir JAMES GRAHAM proved, from the poor-law re-
turns, that free trade had been of great benefit to the
labouring classes, whose condition was now far better
than it had been a few years ago. The real object of
the motion was to re-impose corn taxes, and he
warned the Free-traders that it was their duty to be up
and doing, for a serious conflict was at hand. The
Right Hon. Baronet concluded with a high eulogium on
Sir HOBERT PEEL, to whose doctrines he expressed his
undeviating attachment.
Mr. BOOKER was convinced that sooner or later they
must return to a system of protection.
Mr. LABOUCHERE said that the great mass of the
population was in an improved and prosperous state,
and quoted largely from several returns, krt. the purpose
of showing that the shipping and ship-budding interests
had greatly benefited by the repeal of the navigation-
laws.

Mr. CAYLET denounced statistics as most deceptive
things, contending that the alleged prosperity of the
country was unreal, and warned the Heuse against the
results of the monetary pressure which he saw was
impending.
Mr. CARDWELL contended that our various branches
of commerce were in an improved and improving con-
dition, and that the landowners would soon be enabled
by their own exertions to retrieve their position. The
wamasautnotltea allvyu the
ne
other taxes put together, and to give it to the owners
of land.

Culonel DUNNE supported tho motion.
Lord JOCELYN also supported the motion, but ad-
mitted that if we were to return to protection, it must
not be by a mere majority, but in compliance with the
feeling of the nation, inasmuch as he was ready to admit
the advantages which free trade had conferred upon
certain classes.

Mr. B. COCHRANE conceived that the House was
bound by the sequence of the paragraphs in her 114.-
JESTY.S Speech to give the agriculturists the opportunity
of being beard, and he should cordially support the
motion.

Mr. COBDEN said that this motion could have but one
real object, that of Protection, under one name or
another. Sir JAMES GRAHAM had exhausted the sub-
ject-, but he would add, in answer to Mr. DISRAELI,
that his assumption, that on the repeal of the corn-
law there had been a species of contract that corn should
keep at some certain pt ice, was untenable. The only
object and effort of the Free-traders had been to obtai❑
corn at the natural price of the world; that object was
gained, they were satisfied, and so was the country. He
had had nothing to do with prophesying about pricer.
The real way to relieve the farmers was to redue,. the
Government expenditure, and discourage motions
of this char. (qtr., which were -intended to delude the
larmers, and prevent them from insisting upon proper
terms with their landlords. Let them grant leases,
diminish game, and amend the law of transfer and dis-
traint—theae measures would really benefit the farmers.
He warned the Pro:ectionists against again ent.ring
into a contest with the people, and he hoped the Irish
Members would nut be induced from a feeling of irrita-
tionto support the motion.

Mr. MOORE would support the motion, in order to
give a lesson to the Minister who had insulted the tell-
gion of the Irish people.
Lord Jour; RUSSELL thought the attempt to force
forward such a motion as this, without distinctly de-
claring its meaning, or the intentions of those who ad-
vocated it, was a most dangerous step. The real but
concealed object of the motion was the restoration of
protection. Any attempt in that direction was full of
danger, for the mass of the working classes had fully
made up their minds as to the advaetages they had
gained by free trade, and took a deep and vital in-
terest iu the question. It was most dangerous, as
well as most unfair, to start such a topic, and yet
not to take either one side or the other.
He denied that the lauded interest bore any peculiar and
weighty burdens. The policy of the present Govern-
ment had been to remove, as far as possible, the taxes
which pressed upon labour, and to that policy they were
determined to adhere.

Mr. DISRAELI replied, and Mr. MtTNTZ and Mr.
GRENALL briefly stated that they should support the
motion.

The House then divided, when the numbers were—
For the motion
Against it
Majority -14

It has been reported, but we trust untruly, that
the Bishop of LICHFIELD has so far yielded to the
solicitations of his Puseyite clergy as to intend to
absent himself from the discussion on the Bill to
legalise marriage with the sister of a deceased wire,
the Bill being founded upon the unanimous report of
the Commission, of which he was himself the head !

The Episcopal Bench have little popularity to lose,
and if this course is to be pursued by them they will
do their best to widen that breach between the clergy
and the laity, which Lord ASHLEY described on
Monday night as being very wide already. In 1835,
when a highly popular member of the nobility con-
tracted a marriage of the kind, it was legalised forth-
with, no single individual of the Bench of Bishops.ob-
jecting.

Now, when thousands of these marriages are
proved to have taken place among the poor, some of
these very same Bishops either stay away, or.threaten
to oppose, in the case of a poor man, that which they
unanimously granted to a rich one !
The cause, however, must succeed ; it is founded
in justice, and every day produces its converts. The
Bishops made a similar opposition to Sir SAMUEL
RoMlLL'r's efforts to amend the criminal law, yet, in
spite of their efforts, we no longer see rows of men
and boys hanging in the Old Bailey for stealing more
than forty shillings.
The Bishop of LICHFIELD is an amiable man, but
be is a timid man, and lives in terror of the Puseyites.
If he wishes, however, not to disgrace himself in the
eyes of the country, he must act upon his well-known
opinion that marriage with a deceased wife's sister is
not contrary to the Word of GOD.
We are glad to see, in a Lincolnshire paper, that
the Bishop of LINcoLN has admitted to a gentleman
at Loath, who has contracted such a marriage, that
the Bible does not forbid it. The h Bis..op of LONDON
says the same, as appears in the report of the
Marriage Commissioners.
Will these Bishops, after such an admission,
persist in hanging up in our churches the table
asserting that such marriages are forbidden by GOD?
The Bishop of LICHFIELD will be closely watched
in this matter, and his character depends: on the
course which he now takes. We shall recur to the
subject.

WHAT HAVE THE WHIGS DONE FOR IRELAND
A pamphlet under tbis suggestive title, and not
unfitly dedicated to the present Lord•Lieuteaant of
Ireland, ba just come under cur consideration. It