The Sun. — 1845-05-23 (London, England)

CREATOR. They will proclaim to the neglected and oppressed,  " Ye are brothers, ye are men, And we govern but to save." A distinguishing feature in this debate is the absence of party spirit. Last evening the chief of the Government and the leader of the Opposition both declared their intention to follow their own opinions regardless of friend or foe. Sir ROBERT PEEL spoke as became his proud position—he boldly declared himself the Minister of England, not the chief of a faction. We know not if his former promises led his friends to think otherwise, but we are sure that every one must agree with him, that a Minister must do his duty to his country without any regard to individuals. "It seems to me," he observed, " that a misapprehension is entertained in some quarters with respect to the position of a Minister of the Crown. I am proud of the confidence, as any man can be, which a great party has placed in me ; still I never can admit that he o xis any personal obligation to those members who have placed him in a certain position, and I should consider it as the happiest day of my life when I was permitted to act merely as an indvidual Member of Parliament, unconnected even with party, rather than continue to hold office by the servile tenure of the advice I give to my Sovereign upon every subject being exactly in conformity with every opinion which every member of that party might hold." Lord JOHN RUSSELL, after approving of the measures of the Government, declared that no party views should induce him to oppose what he thought right, and added:— " I would say to the Government, Do net stop short with this measure, as you see you have no party differences to fear when you bring forward measures really advantageous to Ireland. Whatever obstacles you may meet with, you will not be encountered by the anxiety of those who have lost power to possess themselves of office ; expect a majority of this House to go with you if you fairly and boldly declare your intentions, and rely, as the Right Hon. Gentleman declares he will, on the value of those measures themselves for the support and acceptance they will receive.' "  From these sentiments we are led to anticipate the downfal of all those narrow party views which for so many years have disgraced our Legislature, divided statesmen into placemen and expectants, caused questions of right and wrong to be regarded but as factious disputes, and given rise to that fatal system of expediency, the curse of modern legislation, which has proved alike destructive to the fame of Parliaments and Ministers, and opposed to the happiness and welfare of the people.  When we very lately animadverted on the strange anomalies and deficiencies of our criminal law, and instanced the absurd inequality with which punishment was apportioned to offences coming under the cognisance of its jurisdiction (an inequality by reason of which the severest penalties are sometimes meted out for the most venial transgressions of a statute, having regard to certain acts in themselves indifferent—and the lightest are inflicted for crimes the most revolting to humanity, because of some technical informalities in the indictment, or some error in the pleadings), we little imagined that we should so soon encounter an evidence of the physical existence of one of those unconvicted ruffians who now and then escape in the last crisis, as it were, of fat', the ignominious doom they have justly merited. It is undoubtedly a sound principle of humanity, and of justice as well as of law, to assume any man innocent, in the face of whatever evidence may have been brought forward to substantiate his guilt, until a verdict of Guilty shall have been recorded against him. At the same time there are facts and circumstances on which, though the cumulative and legal proof necessary to establish a conviction may be wanting, the impression of the public mind is clear and distinct that they are conclusive of the guilt of the accused. We mentioned the case of one " SHEENE," tried many years ago at the bar of the Old Bailey, for the murder of his infant child by cutting its head off. This ruffian escaped conviction at the time, solely by virtue of some worthless quibble as to the technical description in the indictment of himself or his victim—(for we really forget which). Whichever it was, he had been styled in the pleas of the Crown " THOMAS " for " JOHN," Or " JOHN " for "