The Sun.
London, England, 1838-07-19 00:00:00

elusive friends of the landed interest. The Whigs sup.

port it, but the Tories denounce its objects as iniquitous.
We are glad then of this discussion—it has already un-
veiled many hypocrisies, and as the Bill has yet to be
discueeed in another House it will unveil, not a few more.
What sill the Lords do with the Bill ? Will :he Tory
landlo.ds resist this appropriation as sturdily as they re-
sisted the appropri-lion of the Irish Church property, and
brand all the assenting landlords of the lower House as
iniquitously de,iring to plunder the Church ? What %%ill
the Bishops say? Will they who have Lever opened
tin it mouths against the iniquitous Corn Law dare to de-
nounce this lesser iniquity, because they, holy men, are
Tightly to be suff revs by it ? Is it t be sacrilege for the
landowners to take a fraction of their tith.a by a law, and
a t irtur us action for the said landlord: in conjunction Kith
with the purple-clothed, capon-c rtir.n Prelates, to take the
bread out of the mouths of the poor, and to starve l.uman
he-
iii6s out of ey is!eace by the slow tortm e of insufficient nouri-h
n out ? The bill has already, according to Mr. JONES and Mr,
(10U LBu RN. laid hare the hypocritical prole:3l(ms of attach-
toe:.t to the Church made by the landlords, and it wig
most probably, next week, let the world s,o what is the
sincerie y, and what the hyPocrisy, of those who claim the
respect of the world as the heavenly teachers, guardians,
protectors, and guides of the poor.
The Lull: of the Imdlords last night, including Sir
ROBERT PEEL, gave a cheerful assent to a Bill for
the recovery of small tenements. Originally it was
limited to tenements of 104 value. On Sir Ro-
Lewes motion it was made to apply to tenements
of 20/. value. But why should there be any limitation ?
Why should not the possessor of Siun Home. ,f he be
wrongfully in possession, he ejected by the sime simple
process as the tenant of a mud hovel ? Knowing the
character of the landlords to which Sir R. PEEL last
bight gave his certificate, we look with jealousy on these
distinctions, and know that the tenantry will say that the
simple process for houses of 20/. value, in none of which
the landowners ever dwell, but of many of which they are
the owners, will operate exclusively to their advantage,
sshile if the law were made universal, some of them might
be obliged summarily to quit their splendid mansions.
They mean, we presume. still to preserve that principle
of Magna Charta, which enables the poorest mans' cottage
to bid defiance to all the forces of the Croan for them-
selves, but they are to abash it as to the poor, and open
their houses to the posse comitatus. The language of Lord
CHATHAM, at all times we are afraid on this subject more
poetical than true, is no longer to have the shadow of a
foundation.
" The cottage," he said, be frail - •
roof may shake—the wind may blow through it—th
may enter, but the King of England cannot enter—alt has
power dare not cross the threshold of thernmed tenement."
The landlord, however, by Mr. AG LIONBY'S Bill as amended
by Sir It. PEEL, may walk into all the houses they claim
of less than 20/. value, and the maxim that an Englishman's
*house is his castle, at any time, perhaps, but a fiction
of saw, is no longer to have the semblance of an existence
for houses below 20/. We do not disapprove of the prin-
ciple of the Bill so far as it goes to enable every man cheaply
to recover what properly belongs to him, but we contend
that it ought to apply equally to houses like Chatsworth,'
and to the cottages of the poor.

e rai

We have of late on two or three occasions, and particu-
larly when speaking of tle influence which the Clergy