The Sun.
London, England, 1835-03-25 00:00:00

LYCEUM THEATRE.

Jenny Vertpr6 appeared on Monday night in Theobald; on,
Retour de Russie, a vaudeville, now performed for the first
time in London. A young soldier of the Grand Army, who
has escaped from a Russian prison, wherein he had long been
confined after the fatal campaign, leaves behind him a dear
comrade, who cannot share his fortune, and whose death from
illness appears inevitable. He bears letters and a last farewell
from that friend to his family, consisting of a grand-mere, who,
greatly loved by her children, is in the feeblest state of health,
a mother and sister—the latter personated by Jenny Vertpre.
The young soldier arrives, but by a mistake is taken for his
friend, the son and brother. He is received as such in transport
by the grand-mere and Mademoiselle, who each believe that
the youth has grown out of their recollections. His dread of
the effect upon the affectionate invalid, of suddenly rectifying
this error, restrains him from avowing at once his true cha-
racter. Meantime he is caressed by both ladies, and Made-
moiselle takes all the little liberties with him that she con-
ceives permissible with a brother, lavishes on him sundry fami-
liar endearments, and tells him some secrets of her dislike
to an elderly lawyer, whom she is about to marry, and
her inclination for a certain young officer, a friend of his
(her brother.) He receives kisses and confidence with equal
pleasure and anxiety. At length the mother sees him,
and she at once disavows him, and the truth comes out.
Still, to save the feelings of the poor invalid, the discovery
is concealed from her, and in her presence the parties act as if
no change had occurred in their position. Here the predica-
ment of Mademoiselle becomes most amusing. She cannot
willingly continue, nor yet break off her familiarity with the
young soldier. In this position of the parties, worked up as
it is with nice skill, the comic interest of the vaudeville lies.
The unexpected arrival of the true lover, solves the dilemma
of its plot. Nothing can be prettier or more natural, than the
contrast between the manner of Jenny Vertprii, when she in-
dulges in artless, innocent freedoms with the brother, and the
constrained cordiality with which she is obliged to treat the
stranger•, against whom she feels a jealous pique.
We congratulate the public upon the promised re-appear-
ance of Lemaitre at this house.

ROBBERY.—Late on Saturday night, the residence
of Colonel Bowater, No. 98, Pie,.%dilly was entered, and two
valuable gold watches were carried off. No clue has been ob-
tained as to who committed tl-de robbery, but the police are on
the alert, and are using e,onsiderable exertions to make the
discovery. ". •

Lord John Russell grounds his complaint of breach of
privilege, on two passages, which he quoted, from a leading
article that appeared in this paper on Monday last, and
which, as they are repeated in the report of last night's
proceedings in Parliament, we need not insert here. It is
not our present purpose to defend those passages or to
apologize for them in any manner ; still less is it our pur-
pose to repudiate or retract a single syllable that they con-
tain. That they have demerits, which men of correct
taste in moments of calm deliberation may easily perceive,
we do not quite go so far as to deny ; but we do distinctly
deny that they violate any privilege of the House of Commons,
or that they interfere even in the slightest degree with any such
privilege, any further than as they repeat, to a certain ex-
tent, the original offence of publishing what had taken place
in that Assembly. * * * * *
There was one observation made by Lord John Russell
last night, in reference to which, before we conclude, we
have a word or two to say. LOrd John alluded twice to
the deliberation which he supposes to be afforded to the
composition of newspaper articles. We certainly do not
at present see the least reason why we Should resort to the
apology of haste, or wail, of due deliberation, on account
of any sentiment we have expressed. But it is as well
to set his Lordsbip right as to the matter of fact. All
who know anything of a Newspaper-office, will bear us
out in the assertion ' that Newspaper articles are gene-
rally written, if not with less deliberation, at least with
greater rapidity, than the private letters of a gentleman
of ordinary leisure. The thing is of no importance, for
we certainly do not mean to rest anything upon it. But
there was nevertheless, we think, considering the posi-
tion Lord John Russell has.. thought fit to assume, a lit-
tle unfairness in his remark. He first forgets the ca-
lumny levelled at us by his friend, which, it must be
remembered, was a written calumny, and then, to aggravate
the fault (if fault there be) of our retort, takes it for
granted that newspaper writers can afford themselves as
much time to think what they shall say to their readers as
dilletanti poet will consume, on a rainy day, in manufactur-
ing a few lifeless lines of blank verse.—Morning Post.

There seems to be but one opinion out of doors, as it is
called, respecting the character and spirit of the alterca-
tions, rather than discussions, which distinguished the pro-
ceedings of Monday evening * * * * # # *
But, generally with regard to the House of Commons,
there is no denying that a new system has been recently
acted on by certain parties. Instead of calmly reasoning upon
any question, and thus endeaVouring to determine public
opinion, they begin by the use of insulting epithets or alle-
gations, for no imaginable result except engaging and abus-
,m_ ;ndividuals in the work of self-defence, and thus wasting
g ' • - ni.ht of the Session in unseemly and exaspe-
night after ' ;t is manifest that such coarse virulence,
rating discord. Ama'ust
pro,. uce.a gradual impression of its
if submitted to, tin those against whom it has
being not altogether unmeritea
-en thus assailed are
been victoriously directed, the gentlet- .
tahly. the angry
driven into replies which reciprocate inev...
objects
spirit of the aggressors, so that two maL
of the system are sure to suceeed—namely, the obstrt.,." tion
of the public affairs, and the maintenance throughout so-
ciety of an acrimonious and unquiet temper, both circum-
stances being gravely injurious to the regular course of go-
vernment. If an Opposition saw much chance of dividing
the House successfully, its leaders would not, as it seems
to us, be so ready to yield at least passive encouragement
to a course of brawling and disturbance, which, though dis-
graceful only to those with whom it originates, re-acts with
evil influence upon others. Ministers, we dare say, will not
suffer themselves to be fatigued by this practice of perverse
worrying and tormenting into an abandonment of their
manly efforts to carry through measares which they know
in their hearts to be indispensable to the national safety
nor will their friends and supporters indirectly sanction
such a manoeuvre, by relaxing in disgust that vigilant attend-
ance through which alone it can be defeated.—Times.
We have elsewhere alluded to the majority of 31 against
Ministers in the case of the Chatham petition. Sir Ro-
bert Peel exerted himself greatly to screen Colonel Tre-
menheere, and quash the Inquiry ; but all his crafty ma-
noeuvring to limit the inquiry, and thus defeat it, proved
unavailing. It will be seen from the division, that Lord
Stanley's party all voted with Ministers. It may surprise
those who give Sir Robert Peel credit for great cunning,
that he should, in this ugly case, have shewn his natural
disposition with so little reserve. But the truth is, we be-
lieve that he really was deceived by Mr. Charles Ross into
the persuasion that be had a majority with him. We
may infer from this what his conduct would be if he
could only afford to throw off the mask, under the pro-
tection of a real majority. No man regrets more the
necessity of being virtuous than the Right Honourable
Baronet.—When the gallery was cleared, the Attorney-
General rose and stated that he saw a distinction between
the original motion . and the Amendment. Sir Robert
Peel said that be had understood that there was no objec-
tion to his first Amendment, which in fact was very little
different from the original motion. Sir John Hobhouse
said that although he had stated that there was very little,
if any difference between the two, yet if a division was to
take place, he hoped all the Members on that side of the
House would vote for the original proposition of their own
friend. On this the House divided, and all the Opposi-
tion, together with some recruits, went out, and gave a
large majority against the Prime Minister. Thus has
trickery been rewarded. The fact is, that Sir R. Peel thought
that though the Amendment was a specious project, yet thot
it would go forth to the country that the Commons had
adopted his Amendment in preference to the Whig
proposition. Misled, as we have already observed,
by the Tory runners and whippers-in, who have deceived
him before, and will deceive him up to the last day of his
wretched ministerial existence, Sir Robert Peel must be
daily convinced that the endeavour to govern by minorities
is impracticable, and that the sooner he retires the more
he will save from the wreck of his former character.
Ministers seem to have laid aside the bullying System for
a time, if we may judge from their conduct last night.—
Morning Chronicle.