The Sun.
London, England, 1844-07-18 00:00:00

SPIRIT of the PUBLIC JOURNALS.
FROM THE EVENING PAPERS OF YESTERDAY.
GLOBE.—"I repeat it again," said Sir Robert Peel
last night—and indeed he does repeat it, at least as often
as modesty tolerates—" I repeat it again, that we have
done more, without destroying any existing interests,
though they were frightened at first—we have done
more for the relaxation of commerce, and contri-
buted more to the restoration of commercial pros-
perity, than any Government that has preceded us."
Now, in every point of view, it appears to us Minis-
ters made an exceedingly bad beginning. In the first
plaoe, so far from contributing to the restoration of
commercial prosperity, we affirm that nothing could
possibly have so much retarded it, as the extreme de-
gree of distrust they created by their unexpected unset-
tling of favoured interests. This is what Sir Robert
Peel euphemises as frightening existing interests at first.
May we ask, how it came to be Sir R. Peel's part to
frighten existing interests ? Frightened them he had,
to his heart's content, at the measures of his opponents.
Taken hits stand he had, to all human appearance and
understanding, and so had that slippery corn and cur-
rency convert, Sir James Graham, on the Bill, the
whole Bill, and nothing but the Bill--of 1828. Ever
since the Agricultural Committee of 1836, at which
epoch the Whig leaders in the Commons evinced them-
selves favousable to the substitution of a fixed duty for
the sliding scale, the Conservative leaders had lost no
occasion of marking that as a grand point of difference
between parties. On the one hand, they presented them-
selves as the steady supporters of the existing law against
even inquiry—and, on the other hand, they pointed to
their opponents as men who had shown and avowed
themselves disposed to change that law. It is fallacious
to accuse the late Ministers as having only bethought
themselves of commercial relaxations in the fashion
of a deathbed penitence in 1841. For years pre-
viously their expressed desire for a change in the
corn-laws had been worked by their intended sue-
ceasors as one of the most dangerous things about
them. Well, no sooner were the elections carried by the
alarm against change of the corn-laws, than the new
Minister intimated that he was not pledged to every
figure of the sliding scale. He had previously stood
by the existing law, as something it was sheer heresy
to inquire into ! Instant innovation on the existing law
was his first measure for frightening existing interests.
Consistency (save the mark !), however, demanded
that the change should not be complete. Something
else, therefore, was to be thrown in as a makeweight—
a tub to the popular whale. Corn could not, for de-
cency, be satisfactorily handled, amongst the new " re-
laxations of commerce." Cattle, therefore, which no
soul dreamed of, which no tongue or pen asked for,
were to curry favour with the food-appetent public for
these "knaves in grain." Here was another "fright" for
the interests whom Sir Robert Peel came in to save from
being frightened. First he frightened them at the reckless
Whigs, who could dream of making corn an object of
commerce. l%lt'B. Corn was already so—at intervals of
few years—and the Whigs, therefore, in seeking to give
its commerce steadiness, were far from seeking to de-
stroy any existing interest—but, on the contrary, as we
are firmly persuaded, consulting for the best, as re-
garded the landed interests themselves. Cattle, how-
ever, was no object of commerce in any one's contempla-
tion. To begin making it so was to break new ground;
to bring in foreign competitors de gaiete de caur. Eng-
land is as eminently fit to supply herself with home-fed
cattle, as she is eminently unfit to devote her inferior soils
to wheat. Here then was was a totally wanton and treache-
rous aggression on the very interest these men declared
required to be excepted from common commercial princi-
ples. Here was an inlet of competition with that interest
opened in an article of importance to it—and the neces-
sity of importing which had never shown itself in the
manifest shape which called loudly for change as re-
girded the commerce in corn. But not only are these
M;nisten chargeable (from the protective point of view)
with starting unexpected game—with throwing open
unasked-for imports—but the admission of those
imports was flatly cent:adictory to their plea for
landed protection. If land required protection.
it required it pre-eminently for this branch of
pro Nets. For this is essential to all the rest—en-
coasag:ng cattle-breeding is encouraging cultivatien ;
discouriteing it is diicouraging arid impoverishing the
eery culture Sir Pk-rt Peel still pretends to key!,
out of the orslieary- commercial category altogether
We do believe that noilii 'iie- retire aitounding ever was
eenceivs or perpetrated, by any Goverritne::t keep
ine- up the pretence of protecting agriculture—havin:.:
nieniel out its predecessors because they weeia nu+
enough protect agriculture—ba!louittg the hounds o'
eesry county on Lersl .John Ruse, 11 and his lat.,
eolhlegtiet fur proposing a duty- of Ss. on corn, whiei
ceinies in whether we will or nut—and then adopting
divy on cattle—whose manure is essential ti
eore-ei&ure I . Let any intelligent agriculturists.
seven w:;o still eliag to protection, ansrscr the titles-
trem, Lord John Etissell's moderate Tel,
ptieetion of commercial and finarieial
to 'the article of corn, or Sir Robert
unsettlemeut of corn, and new start with cattle.
,the more pregnant with ultimate depressing effects
oa agriculture ! We know this, that men of :hat order
think the repeal of the cattle-laws far more mischievous
to them than could have been repeal of the corn-laws.
Such men say that the small number of foreign beasts
hiitherto imported supply no criterion whatever
or the erect of Sir Robert Peel's cattle clap-
trap. They say that it required some years' pre-
paretion—Aieh preparation is actively making in Hol-
land, Holstein, Northern Germany, &c.—to enable
ioreigners to feed up to the condition required by the
tleinand of the English market. The farmers on the
opposite coasts have now provided themselves with the
short-horned breed fitted for this market ; and they will
find no difficulty in fattening-up to the point required, as
the greater part of the very cake with which our farmers
fatten comes from Hamburgh, Holland, and Holstein ;
aril the freight of oxen is less from Hamburgh than
from Aberdeen.
STANDARD.—Putting on one side the deep crimi-
nality of fretting and teasing the temper of a diseased
though convalescent population, the Irish grievance-
mongering of the Opposition
.in Parliament is unspeak-
ably contetnpfible. Mr. Wyse on Monday occupied the
House of Commons with the State Trials, already dis-
etssed in half a dozen different shapes, and upon one
occasion, in February, for nine successive nights. The
eteaege, however, though false was grave, and we hoped
that it would remain the well-wearing stock of the Irish
grievance-mongers,
" As in some Irish houses, when things are so so,
One gammon of bacon is hung up for show."
We were, however, mistaken ; the House of Lords must
•htwe its "gammon" too (we design no vile elang.pun),
and last night Lords Fortescue and Normanby"pre-
sided at the beggarly entertainment. The " gammon "
which occupied the noble assembly was supplied
by the case of Mr. O'Driscoll, whom the Chan-
cellor of Ireland, having first dismissed from
the commission of the peace, as not having at the
time (in consequence of recent indisposition) sufficient
zommand of his temper, subsequently restored to the
bench, upon the request of nearly all the noblemen,
gentlemen, and yeomanry of the neighbourhood. Un-
fortunately for the grievance-mongers, Mr. O'Dris-
toll is not an Orangeman, or even a Protestant. He
is one of the sect which usually supplies them with
.offering innocents. Mr. O'Driscoll is a Roman Ca-
; but as a loyal, a liberal, and a respectable
geo:lensan, he is considered by the ex-Ministerial
party as fit an object of persecution as if he had all his
life toasted the battle of " the Boyne," or of " the Dia-
mond." The charge against Mr. O'Driscoll is cumu-
lative ' - his crimes, if not of a very deep dye, are mani-
fold. He, it seems, in a rescue case in which himself was
the sufferer, sent for a witness to the rescue to his house,
and them forwarded the same witness to give evidence
before another magistrate, which other magistrate, dis-
satisfied with the conduct of the witness, committed
him, the witness, to prison. To this vicarious respon-
sibility for the act of another magistrate, Mr. ('Driscoll
added the heinous guilt of impeaching the justice of a
decision of his brethren of the bench, and was even
reluctant to apologise, though in the end he made a
most ample apology ; lastly, he actually struck with the
lash of his riding whip an urchin whom he suspected of
having shot a `hare before the hounds, which he was
at the time following in all the enthusiasm of the
chase. All these enormities were duly represented to
thus Chancellor of Ireland, blazoned of course in that
style of eloquence by which the Irish so well know how to
.bring out a grievance in bold relief and full effect—an
art, by the way, like that which enables the French cook
to convert old shoe-soles, candles'-ends, and fish-bones
into die savoury and piquant " harlequin," eulogised
by Eugene Sue's " Chourineur." The medley accusa-
tion, duly seasoned by the officers of the repeal con-
spiracy, was presented to the Chancellor, who tota re
perspecta concluded that Mr. O'Driscoll was like
many other squires of his age—a testy old gentleman—
that a recent indisposition (a fit of. gout, we would
'wagon) had lately rendered him more irritable, and that
therefore it would be as well to suspend for the present,
so the Chancellor's words ran, his functions as a ma-
gistrate. We 'are tempted to stop here, and ask
wilether this was • not hard measure—whether there '
de a :squire of sixty years of age in the com-
mission of the peace in England who has not trans-
.eressed .ts often and as gravely as Mr. O'Driscoll ?
.However, the Irish Chancellor was right. Living in a
'aloud of slaoderers and false accusers, he could not be
too circumsci act. Meanwhile Mr. O'Driscoll's friends
and neighbosties of all ranks, those best qualified to
estimate his `stealing worth, felt the slight apparently
offered to lif'an as a wound to themselves ; they re-
spectfully re monstrated with the Chancellor, and
the Chancello. r complied with their anxious wishes
by restoring their old friend to the commisson ;
and if the Cha acellor had not done so, he would be un-
worthy of the station he holds. Such was the trum-
pery case with which the House of Lords was entertained
last night, three the whole of its sitting, by the last
two Whig Viol roys of Ireland. Trumpery as the
4iffair is, the a xhibition to which it gave rise
is Of inestirelth le value—it shows out of what
stud' the Whigsi manufactured their Irish Viceroys ;
it shows, too, r LOA ' truly we spoke when we said that Sir
Robert Peel's G 100 ernment had been niggardly of Irish
grievances—nit; ge.rdly indeed when nothing more pre-
sentable than t le case of Mr. O'Driscoll's restoration
I_, in be futuel Ihe state of Ireland is unhappily far
Urn one of pi +r '.Fret felicity, much less enjoyment ;
!".:IVY;tl44f,..te eon) uct of the Government only was
, ire Ina rring the prosperity and corn-
i'''z'S-Of:thlere °pie, this very grievance proves that Ire-
Wvittrf seltlise ; for if we must set down as a
sallif•fd voaa-b: war f one who can complain of nothing but
• ertitapleel,s4 e-1; :af on his couch, may we not call that
per( appy who have ne more .-eriousgrotvid
- ; ti, .ita than such an act as Mr. O'Drisco l's
_ rest

t
A.. ft PPY
LANDLORD.—Yesterday the wife of
:',,fr. Edward 1106 - , 4,re.s, landlord of, the Royal Oak public...house,
4 ...:,-..!:.,.,t, :\--, cy-road, Marylebone, did her husband the
J. . !Ur Of ilad'log to his family circle three fine bobs, who,
with their motile. !, pre doing well.

IMPER/AL PARLIAMENT.

ROUSE OF COMMONS, July 17.
POOR-LAWS.

(Continued from our Afternoon Edition of yesterday.)
Mr. BAILLIE COCHRANE thought that unless
these asylums were as numerous as the police-offices,
they would be of no use.
Colonel SIBTHORP wished to know what provision
was to be made for those persons for whom there was
no room in these asylums?
Sir JAMES GRAHAM was afraid that, without the
insertion of a proviso, the clause might be construed to
relieve the unions from the obligation at present im-
posed on them, of relieving the destitute poor; and in
that case, when the asylums were full, the poor would be
left without relief. jiktherefore proposed to introduce
a proviso enacting t nothing in this Act contained
shall be construed as relieving guardians or relieving
officers of unions from any obligation at present imposed
upon them by law to relieve any case of destitution or
urgent necessity.—(Hear, hear.)
After a few words from Mr. HENLEY, which were
inaudible in the gallery,
Sir JAMES GRAHAM said, if he could ascertain
the exact wishes of the Committee, he should be most
happy to comply with them. On the whole, it would
be as well that the question of removal should be post-
poned—(Hear, hear)—and that the clause, with the ad-
dition he had proposed, should be agreed to. in order to
meet the immediate emergencies of the case.—(Hear.)
Colonel WOOD (Brecon) quite agreed in the pro-
priety of postponing the entire question of removal until
the next session, when they would all be better prepared
to discuss and decide upon it.
Mr. WAKLEY expressed a hope that the addition to
the clause was so worded as not to supersede the liability
of the relieving officer to extend help, or the right of the
really unfortunate to claim it.
Sir JAMES GRAHAM said his intention in framing
the clause was precisely that which the Hon. Member
for Finsbury desired, and he thought the phraseology
would bear out that intention.
The clause as amended was then agreed to.
Sir JAMES GRAHAM said he was now in the hands
of the House, and he was willing to obliterate the power
of removal from the Bill, or to proceed with the discus-
sion of the words, giving such power as the majority of
the Members mightN; think fit.
Mr. BORTH ICK considered it better to retain the
power. As the Right Hon. Gentleman had promised to
bring in a Bill next session on the whole subject of the
law of settlement, it would be very easy then to modify
or otherwise alter the power now given, or to remedy
any evil which might be found to have arisen in the
exercise of it.
Mr. ESTCOURT agreed with the Right Hon. Gen-
tleman (Sir J. Graham) that it would be better to abro-
gate the power, and leave the whole question for deci-
sion in the next session.
Mr. G. BANKES said the question of removal was
now never decided by the judges on its merits. He
agreed in the propriety of deferring the consideration of
the question until next year, when something sound
and permanent might be resolved on.
All the words giving the power of removal were then
truck out from the Bill.
Clause 48 was then agreed to.
Clauses 49, 50, 51, 52, and 53, were agreed to.
Clause 54 was also adopted.
Sir J. GRAHAM then gave notice that he should con-
tinue the consideration of this Bill in Committee to-
morrow, at one o'clock. He had made arrangeMents
with his Hon. Friend ('lr. Gladstone) for that purpose.
Mr. HUME asked if any arrangements had been made
with respect to the Railways Bill.
Sir J. GRAHAM said the Railways Bill would be
proceeded with at twelve o'clock till one, when the Poor-
law Bill would be taken. His Right Hon. Friend would
then state on what day the Railways Bill would be pro-
ceeded with.
The House then resumed, the Chairman reported
drogt an:l obtained leave to sit to-morrow at one.
APPEAL IN CRINIINAL CASES BILL.

This Bill was postponed in consequence of the absence
,f Mr. Fitzroy Kelly.
FIELD GARDENS BILL.

Sir J. GRAM AM suggested that this Bill should be
eominitted pro forma, and postponed till Wednesday
next. To the principle of the Bill he was decidedly
i'avutuable, and he did not think that the course he sug-
gested was at all hostile to the measure.
Mr. MACKINNON advised the Hon. Member who
introditrel tho Bill to accede to the suggestion.
Mr. COWPER consented.
Mr. HUME advocated the propriety of giving la-
nourers a small portion of land in the same manner as
in France and Belgium.
Dr. BOWRING instanced the good effect of the
large number of landed proprietors in Frarre.
It was ultimately ag-rei d that the Chairman should
pr-gress, and ad: leave to sit again, with a view
having amendments introduced, when the B:11 would
oeprinted, and the further consideration of it postponed
until the next ses,lon.
IRISH FISHERIES.

Sir D. NORREYS, seeing the Noble Lord, the Secre-
tary fur Ireland (Lord Eliot), in his place, wished to ask
whether he intended to introduce, during the present
session, any measure For the protection of Irish fisheries?
Lord ELIOT said there was a measure in a sufficient
state of forwardness to be introduced during the present
session; but whether it could be passed or not would
depend upon the opinion of the House. He was in hopes
that the Bill was so framed as to merit a favourable con-
sideration; and he shoidd, therefore, do his best to have
it passed into a law.
IRISH MAGISTRACY.

Mr. SHEIL said there was a sort of understand-
ing that when the Unlawful Oaths (Ireland) Bill
was again before the House the question of the
restoration of Mr. O'Driscoll to the commission
of the peace would be brought forward. Reflec-
tion had convinced him that that question was of far too
important a character to be discussed thus incidentally.
He, therefore, begged to give notice to the Government,
that if the Hon. Member for Belfast (Mr. Ross) did not
make a distinct motion upon the subject of Mr. O'Dris-
coll's re-appointment to the Irish magistracy, he (Mr.
Shell) should feel it his duty to do so.
The Copyhold Enfranchisement Bill went through
Committee pro forma, and the report was br-ought up.
The District Courts and Prisons Bill went through
Committee, was reported, and ordered to be read a third
time to-morrow.
The Lecturers and Parish Clerks Bill was read a
second time, and ordered to be committed to-morrow.
Mr. GREENE brought up the report of the Committee
on the Clerk of the Crown in Chancery, which was
agreed to.
The Party Processions (Ireland) Bill was reported,
and ordered to be read a third time to-morrow.
The Trafalgar-square Bill was read a third time, and
passed.
On the question that the report on the Farm Build-
ings Bill he received,
Mr. HUME complained of the apathy that had been
displayed by the Government with respect to the incen-
diary fires that had taken place in different parts of the
country. He thought the Government ought to have
instituted some inquiry on the subject. He concluded
by . asking whether the Government had taken any
measures to ascertain the causes of these fires, and
whether they were prepared with any remedial measures?
Sir JAMES GRAHAM believed that information
would be afforded to the Hon. Gentleman and to the
country as to the causes of the fires in Norfolk, Suffolk,
and Essex, at the approaching assizes, when seventeen
persons would take their trials on charges connected with
these fires.
Sir CHARLES BURRELL denied that the agricul-
tural labourers were inadequately paid. Their wages
were 13s. a week, which was a fair and reasonable rate,
according to the present ♦alue of corn. Hon. Members
opposite would be better employed, if, instead of endea-
vouring to excite feelings against the farmers and landed
gentry, they would endeavour to persuade the labourers
to avoid these acts of mischief.

Mr. W. WILLIAMS considered 13s. a week very
inadequate wages, but in the eastern counties the la-
bourers could not procure eve❑ that amount. It ap-
peared, fr.im the excellent letters which he had seen in

the Times on this subject, that the correspondent of that
paper brought furward evidence to prove that the
wages in Norfolk and Suffolk ranged from Bs. to 9s.
a week. Those allegations had been subjected to the
most searching inquiry, and their correctness
had been proved ; and it had also been proved that
where the rate of wages was lowest fires had
invariably taken place. Now, he would ask the Hon.
Baronet if Bs. a week was a sufficient remuneration to a
labouring man, whether it was sufficient to enable him
to maintain a wife and five or six childrea ? And unless
they could live on that scanty pittance, they must go
into the union workhouse. No one knew better than
the Hon. Baronet the feelings of abhorrence with
which the labourers regarded these unions. They would
rather enter a prison than a union.
The report was them received, and the Bill was ordered
to be read a third time to-morrow.

Mr. HUME wished to know what the Hon. Baronet
meant by recommending Hon. Members on that side of
the House to advise the labourers not to do mischief ?
He (Mr. flume) had complained to the Government of evils
which were existing in the country, and had asked them
if they meant to apply a remedy. The country gentle-
men said it was necessary that they should have a mo-
nopoly of corn, in order to keep the agricultural la-
bourers comfortable. They did nut fulfil their promise,
and therefore he proposed that trade should be set free,
which would enable the labourers to make themselves
comfortable.
CRIMINAL JUSTICE'S (MIDDLESEX) BILL.
Sir J. GRAHAM, in moving the second reading of
this Bill, proposed to take the debate on the motion for
going into Committee, which he would bring forward
to-morrow at five o'clock.
Tlie Bill was then read a second time.
LOAN SOCIETIES.
The report on the Loan Societies Bill was brought up
and received.