The Sun.
London, England, 1844-02-03 00:00:00

!11.-

LONDON, SATURDAY, FEBRUARY 3, 1844.

The House of Lords met at twelve o'clock yester-
day, and, after appointing a deputation to present the
address to her Majesty, adjourned till Monday:
In the Commons Mr. THORNELT presented a peti-
tion, adopted at a very numerous meeting in Liver-
pool, complaining of the selection of the jury in the
Irish State trials, and the rejection of every Roman
Catholic, and prayed the House to institute an in-
quiry on the subject.
• Mr. WARD gave notice of an amendment on the
motion of the Member for Pontefract, relative to the
Irish Church.
A number of other notices of motion were given,
for which we refer to the Parliamentary report.

In answer to a question from Sir GEORGE GREY,
Sir JAMES GRAHAM said the LORD CHANCELLOR had
announced in the other House his intention to bring
in, at an early period, a Bill for the improvement
of Ecclesiastical Courts.
Mr. DIVETT, in answer to a question from Sir
ROBERT PEEL, said the charge which he intended to
bring against Mr. BONHAM, on the Bth of February,
had reference to his conduct at the last election for
the City of London, inasmuch as that gentleman had,
either through himself or guided by others, made
representations which, if not fraudulent, were cer-
tainly reprehensible. The statement made by the
Honourable Member caused much laughter on the
Ministerial benches.

Mr. WALLACE brought forward his motion on the
presentation of petitions, the object of which was to
allow, as formerly, discussion on their contents. Sir
ROBERT PEEL opposed the motion, and thought that
the standin,g.order. adopted by a large majority of
the House, was foi• the public advantage.
Mr. RBOTHERTON also opposed the motion, which,
..fter some remarks from Mr. WARD, Mr. Fizzamr,

and a reply from Mr. WALLACE, was withdrawn.
Sir GEORGE CLERK moved the usual sessional
.orders, which, after some opposition from Mr. Wm-
Lumi, were agreed to.
Lord emu_ brought up the Report on the Address,

when Mr. S. CRAWFORD moved that all the words
relating to the union be omitted. This led to an
interesting debate on the late exhibition in the Four
Courts, by Mr:SMITH, the Attorney-General for
Ireland. Mr. ROEBUCK made the first onset, and
other Liberal Members followed. Sir ROBERT PEEL
ELIOT endeavoured to make the best
;e, but even the Premier was, after nu-
Inpts k palliate his conduct, compelled
the Chief Justice had-rebuked that high
in terms which must have been highly

painful to him. On a division the motion was re-
jected by a majority of 107.
After some conversation relative to the Irish Land
Tenure Commission, Mr. DIINCOMBE brought on his
amendment on that paragragh of the address having
reference to the franchise in Ireland, but withdrew
it, after some remarks from Sir R. PEEL. The
report on the address was then agreed to.
The Metropolis Improvements Bill was read a first
time, and the House then adjourned.

In another part of The Sun of this day will be
found a letter from Mr. JONES LOYD, in answer to a
request that he would become a member of an asso-
ciation formed for the purpose of counteracting the
designs of the Anti-Corn-law League. It is not a

little curious that Mr. LOYD, of all men in the world,
should have been applied to to enrol himself in such
an association, seeing that his opinions on the sub-
ject of free trade are well known, and that it is
scarcely six months since he subscribed fifty pounds
to that very League which he is now called on to
oppose ! Really the gentleman who made such an
application to him must be endowed with no ordi-
nary powers of effrontery, for what is it but a cool
and modest request that he will act directly counter
to his known opinions, and declare himself a protec-
tionist when he is at heart a free. trader ? We sup-
pose Mr. CospEN will be next applied to, to " coun-
teract the designs of the Anti-Corn-law League,"
and possibly Mr. VILLIERS, also, may be politely
requested to use his efforts for the same purpose ; and
in neither of these applications would there be a whit
more absurdity than in the one to which we are
alluding: However, to pass, this matter, and come at
once to Mr. LOYD'S letter—it is penned in a tem-
perate, manly strain, and is so close and succinct in
its reasoning, that it is impossible for even the ob-
tusest intellect to misapprehend it. After stating that
the prosperity of British agriculture is a cause in
which he would gladly enlist himself, inasmuch as it is
indissolubly connected with the welfare of the whole
community, the writer goes on to observe that he
cannot recognise either the justice or the policy of
attempting to protect his own individual interests as
a landed proprietor, to the detriment of the great
body of the people, by restricting the free and full
supply of their food ; and he significantly adds, " I
would submit whether it would not be as well for us

landed proprietors to examine carefully whether these
restrictive laws, thus at once offensive and injurious
to other classes, are really productive of the benefit
to our particular interest which has usually been as-
cribed to them. The agriculturist is a dealer in the
produce of the soil, and the prosperity of his, as of
every other, trade, must be dependent on the
prosperous condition of his customers. What-
ever improves the general condition of the
people, and oauses a rise of their wages,
must promote in a most effectual manner the prospe-
rity of the agriculturist. Our population is annually
increasing at a fearful rate; if a corresponding increase
of employment be not found, that population must
ultimately become a charge on our land, and thus
prove ruinous to our interests as land-owners." This
is quietly but forcibly put, and seems to us to go at
once to the root of the question. Not less emphatic
are the writer's remarks on the subject of protective
laws in general, which he declares to be founded on
erroneous principles, to engender jealousies and
heart-burnings among the different classes of the in-
dustrious community, and to diminish the wealth of
the country by interrupting its legitimate distribution,

and forcing it into wrong channels. -Mr. LOYD next
proceeds to state his impression of the objects which the
League have in view by their agitation, and explicitly
states that he cannot concur "in designating them as
mischievous designs," for he conceives, on the contrary,
that " they are founded in reason." He concludes
with the following hint to the agriculturists, by
which it is to be hoped they will make a point of
profiting :—" In the laws upon which too many of
us at present rely, I can place no confidence; what is
unjust and baneful to the rest of the community,
cannot be permanently beneficial to us." We thank
the Monopolist Association, for their impudent appli-
cation to Mr. JONES LOYD, inasmuch as it has
,been
the means of drawing from that gentleman one of
the most lucid—forcible—argumentative—and con-
vincing letters on the subject of the corn-laws, and
monopoly in general, it has ever been our good fortune
to peruse. At the present crisis—when the Minister
has for a season (but only fora season!) thrown

himself into the arms of the RICHMONDS.

and the TEOLLOPES, and the rest of that fry—such
a letter is invaluable, as putting us in possession of
the cool, deliberate judgment of one of the wealthiest

merchants of the day ; and who is still less re•
markable for his wealth, than for his great practical

sagacity, sad the utter absence all party views that
characterise his opinions. The League has many
able lecturers in its service ; but , the best lecturer it
can possibly employ, is this letter of Mr. JONES
LOYD, which it will do well to circulate in the cheapest
possible form throughout the country, for it strips the
subject of its adventitious ornaments, and addresses it-
self, by its simple and transparent style,' to the under-
standings of the most ordinary minded men. One word
more, by way of wind-up,to the League. The necessity
for strenuous agitation, always imperative, is now far
more so than ever. They must adopt a bolder tone
in' their language—bearing in mind the effect that a
few recent bursts of dictatorial energy on the part
of the Monopolists have produced on the mind of
our trembling, canting, time-serving Minister
—must get up meeting after • meeting ; issue
address after address ; and justify the confi-
dence of the country by preserving a stern,
impassioned, uncompromising course of conduct in
this, their apparent, season of depression. Have they
not justice—have they not common sense—have they
not every possible motive on their side that can urge
men to strenuous action ? Again and again we say
to the League—persevere, for in perseverance lies
your sole chance of success. What, though the
Premier has fur the season sold himself to the Mono-
polists ! Surely you should by this time know him well !
He is a man who will sell himself readily to which-
ever party gives him thelairest prospect of a continu-
ance in office ; and your's will be able to offer
him this effectual bribe, if you only exert your-
selves with the spirit of men conscious of the justice
of the cause, and resolved to win the day.

Our Dublin .Correspondent makes the following
remarks on the proceedings in the Court of Queen's
Bench, Dublin, on Thursday :
The speech-making in the Queen's Bench still goes
on without intermission. Mr. Whiteside, Counsel
for Mr. Duffy, of the Nation newspaper, spoke to-day
and did his work well. His speech is decidedly the
most able that has has yet been delivered for the
traversers, with the exception of that of Mr. Sheil.
He ridiculed the idea of any analogy existing between
the Repeal " monster meetings" and assemblages of
the Chartists in England, or any seditious meetings
that had ever been made the subject of a State pro-
secution. He cited law authorities without limit in
support of his position, and read from the
News Letter, of the 27th of April, 1834, a de-
scription of the meeting of two hundred thousand men
in London on the subject of the sentences passed on
the Dorsetshire labourers—their procession in divi-
sions through the streets of the metropolis in military
array, with banners flying, to Downing-street, to
place a " monster petition" in the hands of the then
Minister of the Crown—Lord Melbourne—and ap-
pealed to the evidence of Mr. Charles Ross to show
that this " monster meeting," with all the charac-
teristics of the meetings in Ireland, was not con-
sidered an illegal meeting. He asked, how could
the peaceable, orderly meetings in Ireland, be held
to be illegal, if this meeting in England was not so
considered ? He referred to the declaration in Par-
liament of Sir Robert Peel, on the 24th of May,
1843, that if greater powers than those of the ordi-
nary law of the land were necessary to put down
the Repeal agitation, that he would apply
to Parliament for those powers; and he
(Mr. Whiteside) argued, that as several
of the "monster meetings" had been held at the time
of that declaration, the first Minister of the Crown
did not hold them as illegal, otherwise he would have
brought the law to bear upon them for their sup-
pression, had he found it necessary, previous to the pro •
rogation of Parliament, by asking for additional powers
for their suppression. Hew, then, could it be said
that in the eyes of the Government those meetings
were illegal ; above all, how could they be charac-
terised .as prominent features of a conspiracy ? The
Learned Gentleman was listened to with great atten-
tion, and, after a speech of more than six hours, sat
down quite exhausted.

Whatever may be the sentiments of the country on
the object of the Puseyite movement, it seems pretty
clear that the University of Oxford herself contem-
plates no interference in the matter. If any doubt

might have been entertained on the subject the recent
manifesto of his Grace the Chancellor and the Very
Reverend the Vice-Chancellor, in reply to an appli-
cation from Lord ASHLEY and a large number of
graduates, must effectually dispel all such uncer-
tainty. From this document, it seems, that ample
means have already been resorted to for the purpose
of freeing the University from the influence of the
obnoxious opinions.
What are the means The Chancellor and Vice
tell us. They are comprised in three sapient mea-
sures, one of which, we learn from the document
itself, has been in operation about two hundred and
fifty years, and the other two, we believe, were also
employed- some time before the doctrines referred to
were known in this country.
Subscription to the Thirty-nine Articles at matri-
culation, and at the conferring degrees, is the first of
the safeguards against the intrusion of heterodox
doctrines ; secondly, we find due provision made in
the tests which were instituted on the creation of
some modern endowments ; and lastly, we are told
the University has done still more by means of the
increase in the amount of theological training pur-
sued among the students.
How impotent all these plans have been for the
purposes they were designed to subserve, may be
clearly perceived by that most unerring of all tests,
reference to actual experience. How is it that the
University of Oxford contains within herself almost
all the elements which go to compose a Roman
Catholic seminary ? How is it that she finds herself
incapable of suppressing opinions which have
been denounced by her chief resident dignitary as
contrary to the formula and doctrines of the Protes-
tant Reformed Church established in these dominions?
How is it that year after year she is compelled to
send forth men from her schools, who avow their
determination to disseminate, wherever they may
come, principles utterly opposed to the standards of
acknowledged orthodoxy?:. How is it that she che-
rishes by her endowments those who are constantly
plotting her ruin as a nursery of Protestant truth ?
Tell us how these things are, if the powers already
exercised by the University are asserted to be
effectual for maintaining her in her pristine purity.
It might be very well for his Grace the Duke of
WELLINGTON to defend his non-interference by such
an explanation. The country prizes his Grace for
hie achievements in war, not for his labours either in
the closet or in the pulpit. But how is it that Dr.
WYNTER is found acquiesing in such apologies for
doing nothing ? Has his Reverence at length become
more tolerant of error than he was a few months
since, when an opportunity was afforded for the ex-
plicit declaration of his :principles ? Has the ap-
pointment to the Lichfield mitre disconcerted his
former zeal ?
But we tell both the Chancellor and the Vice-
Chancellor, and " the Masters, Professors, Taxors,
and all that bear office in the ancient University,"
that the cool indifference with which they—such of
them, we mean, as are not personally tainted with
these opinions—what is going on is not parti-
cipated in by the country at large. What is more,
we beg to remind that learned body, that, after all,
they must depend for their influence, respectability,
and status, upon the estimation in which they are held
by the country ; and that unless they adopt some
measures for regaining the good opinion of the
Protestants of the empire, it may chance to fare with
them and their endowments less agreeably than they
might desire.

The amendment which, in an early part of the
debate of Thursday evening, Mr. SHARMAN CRAW-
FORD thought proper to move upon the address to her
MAJESTY proposed by Lord CLIVE, appears to us to
have been a very inexpedient proceeding. Whether
considered in reference to the constitutional principle
involved in its proposition, or to the tactics of a legi-
timate opposition to the Government, or even to the
mere efficiency of party demonstrations, we must de-
precate the course which has thus been taken. And
we do so, not simply disclaiming any feeling of
personal prepossession against Mr. CRAWFORD, but
under a full impression, on the contrary, that a more
sincere or honest man it would be as difficult to find
in Parliament, as it would be to name one Irish gen-
tleman of more unwearied zeal in the service of his
native country, or of a more ardent and profound at-
tachment to its people. In fact, we believe that the
error into which he appears to have Pullen in this case
was one of the results of that excess of constitutional
temperament over disciplined judgment which is na-
tive to the idiosyncracy of Irish character, under even
its happiest development. Mr. CRAWFORD'S amend-
ment, in effect, amounted to this : that the House
should apprise her Majesty that, in the present state
of the country they would feel it their duty to in-
quire into grievances bef-ore they voted supplies.
As to the constitutional principle, nobody will at-
tempt to challenge the undoubted right of Parliament
to withhold voting the supplies until certain in-
quiries, voted by the Legislature to be necessary for
the redress of certain grievances, shall have been first
instituted. So admitted an axiom, however, as the
" lex et consuetudo" of Parliament, it was not ne-
cessary, as Lord JOHN RUSSELL well argued, to
make the subject of a formal declaration by that
House. Its constitutional principle was not, more-
over, involved in the question whether the House of
Commons would affirm or reject an amendment
which the same Noble Lord considered, in the next
alternative, as an intimation that the supplies, " which
are not merely for the Crown but for the country,"
would be temporarily withheld "by an obstructive
minority." Nor did Mr. CRAWFORD, in disclaiming
this hypothesis, attempt to invalidate the force
of the inference. In either case, therefore, the
amendment was unnecessary—or not intended—
to affirm a constitutional principle.

Was it, in the next place, compatible with the
tactics of a legitimate opposition to Ministers ? So
far from it, that Mr. WARBURTON, with that manli-.
ness and good sense which generally distinguish his
peeches in the House, demonstrated that such a
course of proceeding at this juncture, and under
existing circumstances, would not merely embarrass
her MAJESTY'S Ministers, but tend to prejudice the
great interests and the public service of this country.
He happily illustrated, too, the wide distinction to be
noted between the probable results of such a vote as
Mr. CRAWFORD would have called for in the present
day, and those which would have ensued upon it
in earlier ages of our history, when the revenues of
the Crown (yet unconnected with the public)
might have sufficed to carry on the machinery
of the various State departments for some
considerable time, without any large amount
of public inconvenience. The Honourable Member
for Kendal showed, moreover, that the whole of this
machinery must now-a-days stand still, if such a
course were for be resorted to to compel the redress
of grievances generally. He said that, " when the
House stopped supplies of old, the evil was small in
comparison of what a similar stoppage would produce
at this day. The Crown of old had large revenues of
its own ; but at this day the revenues of the Crown
were nothing in comparison with the whole expenses
of our establishments. The grievances of the country
were now so many, that if the supplies were stopped
till they were all redressed, the whole session would
be gone before any supply were voted."
The danger, let us add, to the salutary influence of
a legitimate opposition to Government, would. be
proportionably great, if the country found them dis-
posed to sanction a check of this kind, at the sacrifice
of so many higher considerations, in order, only, to
strengthen their own controlling agency.
As to the efficiency of the amendment in question, as
a "party demonstration," the *umbers on the division
tell their own tale. It was supported by 29 Mem-
bers, opposed by 285, and consequently rejected by a
majority of 256. We are really at a loss to discover
what object was to be realised by this premature
proclamation of the minority of their own weakness.
It is quite as difficult to understand why the division
was hazarded at all, since other means were open to
the Hon. Mover for recording the same opinions as
are comprised in its terms, without telling off a
skeleton company, at the end of the engagement, to
demonstrate " that they had gained a loss."

We subjoin the very manly and sensible letter of
the Right Hon: Earl SPENCER, in reply to the
memorial of the meeting at Spalding (held on the
23d ult.), calling on his Lordship to resign his office
of President of the Rpyal Agricultural Society of
England. Our readers will remember, that a sec-
tion of that Society, in its abounding liberality,

int ord
MISP . • rtad case
ttern
hat
„:,