The Sun.
London, England, 1842-05-27 00:00:00

litt --;-, UM

LONDON?
FRIDAY MORNING, MAY 27, 1842.

The House of Commons was engaged nearly the whole
of the evening with discussions about bribery and Ips-
wich, which ended in withdrawing a motion to instruct
the Attorney-General to prosecute persons for
bribery, in refusing to appoint a Committee to inquire
into the bribery at Ipswich, and in issuing a new writ
for that immaculate borough. We infer from something
which Sir ROBERT PEEL said, that he has consented to
Mr. ROEBUCK'S Committee, as much with a view to en-
trap that Han. Member into a failure as to put down
bribery ; and, consistently with that view of his conduct,
he voted to issue the writ for Ipswich, while he earnestly
deprecated all allusion to motives. The result is that
bribery is not to be prosecuted, and a borough already
convicted of corruption is to be invite& to repeat the late
disgusting scene of gross bribery.
Sir ROBERT INGLIS, in the course of the discussion,
observed very correctly, that Committees of the House
were not to be trusted, and were not trusted even when
they had to decide on oath. We know no other tribtinni
of the empire of which this can be said, or even justly
insinuated. The Hon. Baronet concluded, afortiori, that
Committees of the House, prosecuting an inquiry not on
oath, and having no power to administer an oath, were
not for a moment to be confided in, and therefore he con-
scientiously opposed Mr. O'CONNELL'S motion. On the
lion. Baronet's view, all inquiries by Committees must
be useless, and the decision of a Committee, be it what it
might, would not command the confidence of the public.
such is already the condition, according to one of its
own Members, to which the House of Commons
is reduced. From that House, therefore, we
cannot hope to receive any measure to check
bribery. 1)o we intrust the guardianship of pro-
perty to the thieves of the metropolis ? Do we employ
smugglers to collect and take care of the revenue ? Do
we expect that the insene should cure our lunatics ? We
do not. Why, then, should we expect the cure of
bribery from a knot of bribers ? The decision
of the House of Commons, last night, was in
accordance with its character, and we are far less sur-
prised at that, than at its having granted Mr. Ron-
BUCK'S Committee ; though that is now explained, by
some old stagers supposing it will be a trap to catch the
ingenuous young man. He has undertaken to prove
what they believe he will fail to prove. We hope, how-
ever, that he may outwit the cunning old foxes, and
escape without, like them, losing honour and character.

An explanation was afforded last night, by the
Duke of WELLINGTON and the Earl of RIPON, of
their ignorance of the existence of "The Queen's Let •
ter." Both these Noble Lords were understood to say
that they were present in the Council when it was re-
solved to issue such a letter, but they were not aware
that the order had been carried into execution. Such a
subject justly afforded Lord KINNATRD a handle for a
little merriment, and he roasted the two Noble Lords
about the Government being carried on by one person
with a set of clerks. In consequence, probably, of Lord
litsNAlno's notice of the subject the letter has now
found its way before the public, and will be found in
another column of The Sun.

In the documents which accompany the letter, the dis-
tress at Stockport, it is said, " did not assume a very
aggravated character, until within the last eight months."
It is coeval, therefore, with the accession to office of the
PEEL Ministry ; and it does not seem difficult to trace a
connexion between them. The Report of the Assistant
Poor-law Commissioners, concerning Stockport, states
that, in the month of August last. the two large factories
of Messrs. LANE and SONS and Messrs. CARR and Co.,
sto?ped work, and threw out of employment about 3,000 I
hands. But what had Sir ROBERT P.ML'S accession to
office to do with that ? Much. To that period, the mill-
owners might indulge a hope that trade would be re
stored by the propositions of the late Ain Asters respect-
ing corn, sugar, timber, and coffee. All hope was in
August extinguished, and the stoppage might be the
consequence of Sir ROBERT PEEL'S SUCCQSS.
In Mr. ASHTON'S evidence, who is an. occupier of
mills in Hyde, he states that one cause of t'he depression
of the cotton trade is the duties on foreign sugars, of
Which he is an importer. The late Ministers proposed
to alter those duties, and such an alteration would no