The Sun.
London, England, 1845-03-17 00:00:00

.NOTICES OF MOTION.

Mr. Scrg• ant MURPHY gave notice that, after,
Easter, he would move for a Committee to inquire into
the operation of the Act of the 17. th and 18th of
Charles If., relating to the ratting of ministers' money in
certain large towns in Ireland.
Mr. THORNELY gave notice that, in Committe on
the Smoke Prevention Bill, he would propose clauses for
the purpose of exempting iron works from the operation
of the Bill.

Dr. BOWRING gave notice that he would to morrow
put a question to the Government, respecting the pro-
clamation for the alteration of the currency in Malta.

Mr. ORMSBY GORE gave notice that after Easter,
he would present a petition, and bring the case of the
Shrewsbury and Birmingham Railway Company before
the House, with a view to their proceeding with the
Bill in the present session.
Mr. SHAW gave notice that to-morrow he would
nominate the Committee, on the Atmospheric Railway
system.

Mr. AGLIONBY gave notice that he would shortly
move for certain returns relating to New Zealand.

COPPER DUTIES.

In answer to a question from Sir C. LEMON,
Mr. PARKER said, that if he could not bring on his
motion with respect to the copper duties to-night, he
should postpone his motion until the Committee on the
custom duties, after Easter.
JEWISH DISABILITIES BILL:—

Sir R. H. INGLIS wished to know if the Right Hon.
Baronet could inform him when he would take the se-
cond reading of the Bill relating to the Jews ?--
(Cheers from the Opposition.)
Sir R. PEEL could not exactly state when he would
move the second reading. The Estimates would be
brought on early after Easter ; and due notice would be
given of the second reading of the Jewish Diabilities Bill.
He presumed his Hon. Friend would not object to the
first reading of the Bid.
Sir R. H. INGLIS had no hesitation in stating that
he would acquiesce in the first reading of the Bill. It
was usual in Bills being brought from the House of
Lords, that they should be read a first time without
opposition. Within the last twenty years there had been
but three exceptions to this rule. Had the Bill origi-
nated in that House, he would have opposed the first
reading • but,, as it had come from the House of Lords,
he should allow the first reading to pass.
Sir R. PEEL—I move then, Sir, that the Bill be read
a first time now, and I will fix the second reading for
the 7th of April.
The SPEAKER put the question, and Sir R. 11. Inglis
emphatically exclaimed " No !" amidst Mitch laughter.
The Bill was read a first time.
SCOTCH POOR-LAW.
Lord DALMENY rose, and was
[LEFT SPEAKING.]

SPIRIT of the PUBLIC JOURNALS.
FROM TILE EVENING PAPERS OF THIS DAT.
, GLOBE.—We are much of the same mind as the Examiner
—both as to Whig passive obedience, and ex-Radical active
adulation to the Minister of the income-tax. It really seems
to us that to vote (as Mr. Curteis complained, rather patheti-
cally, Lord John Russell did) in the Ministerial majority
against Mr. Buller's amendment, almost amounted to throw-
ing down his brief as leader in the cause of Opposition,
on trial before the great national inquest. Lord John
Russell, as every one knows, has a way of his own ' • and none
more respect and admire than we do his personal indepen-
dence at critical epochs. The spirit that prompted the " Let-
ter to the Electors of Stroud" often may damage a party, but
always stamps individual character and courage; and these.
after all are the qualities men look up to with permanent
confidence, whatever be the temporary fate of parties.
But it is one thing to declare an unpopular conviction,
just when State-craft would suppress it—and quite another
thing to sacrifice partisanship at:the expense of sacrificing
conviction too. Lord John Russell's principhs of financial
policy have been embodied in public measures. With those
measures the contents of the present budget are inconsistent.
If the selection for reduction of duties of the great objects
of popular consumption was right, the present selection is
wrong, and the difference draws after it an income-tax.
Now we can readily understand how Lord John Rus-
sell, or any man of candid mind, may view with
a sort of qualified approval the serpentine advance of
this Ministry. Such opponents may admit that from Minis-
ters so brought in hss might have been expected. They
may admit that, from Ministers so supported, more could
not well be expected. This makes it their duty, doubtless,
to join those supporters on all occasions on which Ministers
are likely to be whipped out of Court for their virtues.
But how can it be the duty of the Opposition to sink
their own views, not to preserve Ministers from any danger
incurred by liberality—not, indeed to preserve them from any
danger at all—but simply for the satiefaetion of adding their
votes to a majority, overwhelming by reason of the very dif-
ference of Ministerial measures from those they
would have proposed ? Surely it cannot be denied
that this is the case of the income-tax majority.
" The country " (as country. gentlemen call it) support
it for the sake of the retained protection which renders it ne-
cessary. Sir Robert Peel denies anv other necessity for it
than that resulting from his policy. He does not deny that re-
duction of the great articles of consumption would give larger
immediate relief. It cannot be denied they would give
larger revenue. Now, those who think colonial and
home objects, of still more importance, involved in 'their
retention may disregard these considerations. But Op-
position, who believe nothing of the kind—why should they
give sanction—or semi-sanction—in their speeches, or in
their votes ? We cannot help thinking there is some mis-
take as to the function of honest Opposition. That func-
tion, in our view, is, on all occasions, to put forth the right
principles of measures. They cannot expect, and need
not desire, te: supersede those of the parties officially re-
sponsible, or even to alter them much in detail. They
may fairly acknowledge whatever they think good, or
less bad than expected, in those measures. Bat they should
sacrifice no jot of their principles, by supporting -po-
licy founded on other principles. They should miss no
opportunity of presenting them in contrast, wherever
they are contrasted. Only in this way can the public
ever be taught preference for those which art really
preferable. The • function of Opposition is neither paltry
nibbling, nor factious obstruction. But it is steady declara-
tion of general views, on every subject involving them. Nu-
merical strength, or immediate prospects, should have no in
fluence on this mode of action. While a minority they have
simply to consult their convictions what course of policy
is the best practicable. If they think Sir Robert's such, let
them speak and vote for it (but if they think so, they for-
swear their own past)—
And while along theestream of time his name
Expanded flies, and gathers all its fame,
Say, shall our little bark attendant sail,
Pursue the triumph and partake the gale?
STANDARD.—We cannot help entertaining a hope, how..
ever improbable such a result may appear, that much national
advantage may accrue from the discussions, although painful
for the time, which are taking place between the New Zea-
land Company and the Government. The usual faults
have probably been committed on both sides, and by
bringing those faults prominently forward, a better
system with regard to colonisation generally may at last
be matured. When we speak of probable faults on both sides,
we have no particular view to this or that individual, either
in the Government or in the Company. The quarrel,
though it new includes Lord Stanley and his Under-Se-
cretaries, would equally have existed had the Administra-
' tion remained in office under whom it originally' began.
The ground of the dispute consists in that entirely, op-
posite course of action which has always been taken
by trading companies on the one hand, and by Govern-
ments on the other. Speculators will ever be found
to move too fast, and all Governments up to the
present time, have, we think, moved too slowly. The New
Zealand Company has bad the argument, up to this time,
very much to itself. Many of the newspapers, and nearly all
the pamphleteers, have sided with the Company against the
Government. One pamphlet, however, has recently
been sent to us, entitled, " The New Zealand
Company ; its Claims to Compensation considered,'
which exhibits some pal t of the case on the other side; and
shows, that if the Company might justly complain of the
dilatoriness of the Colonial-office, the latter bad
some cause to find fault with the eagerness of the Company.
Let any one conceive a plan, by which the duty of colonisa-
tion should be adequately undertaken by a Government ;
and the first points he would be sure to set down would.
be, that a good sight .for a colony should be leisurely
selected ; the land properly and Justly g.aiued by pur-
chase ; the intended colony properly laid out by sur-
veyors; and then bargains made at home with
"settlers, who could Safely purchase, and be at once conveyed
to the land -,lhich they had so made their own. titio,,
however, is not the mode in which trading companies carry