The Sun.
London, England, 1831-10-25 00:00:00

Lord Grey and his colleagues, they may rest assured
that his Majesty's opinions on Reform are un-
changed.—Times.

Whatever may be thought of a political Prelacy
as one of the ancient pillars of the State, it is cer-
tainly not the best support of a Christian Church.
The French Chamber has acted wisely in rejecting
a proposition for converting Priests into politicians,
and Bishops into statesmen. In England the ques-
tion as to having or not having a Bench of Bishops,
as a component part of the House of Lords, stands
upon different grounals. It is not the same thing to
negative a proposition for introducing Bishops into
the Legislature, and to eject them from the seats of
which they have long been in possession. lii the
former case the argument is perfectly free and open;
in the latter it is entangled with the consideration of
established usages and prescriptive rights. In Eng-
land the anomaly exists of a churchman being ineli-
gible to the Lower House of the Legislature, yet
being capable of becoming a Member of the Upper
House. It appears to us that there is no reason for
excluding Clergymen, as such, from the House of
Commons, which might not be urged against the
propriety of allowing Bishops to occupy seats in the
House of Lords, save and except the argument which
present pos,ession, founded upon ancient custom,
supplies. It is said that Clergymen below the rank
of Bishop have no right to seats in the Legislature,
because they are entitled to seats in the House of
Convocation, which used in former times to sit con-
currently with Parliament, to manage and protect the
affairs of the Church, and to settle the amount of taxes
or subsidies which the Clergy wet e willing to pay to
the State, they claimingexemption in those days from
the authority of the secular Legislature. But if it
were right to exclude Clergymen below the rank of
Bishops from Parliament, because of their being
entitled to seats in the lower House of Convocation,

it was right at the same time (though we acknow-
ledge the question has a different aspect now) to ex-
clude Bishops from Parliament, because of their
being entitled to seats in the upper House of Con-
vocation. It is true the meeting of the Convoca-
tion is now a matter of form, and takes place rather
to preserve the right to meet than to transact any
business. But, if this leave the Bishops leisure to
attend the House of Lords, it would afford leisure
also to the inferior Clergy to attend the House of
Commons ; yet it is quite proper that the spiritual
duties of the inferior Clergy should not be embar-
rassed by a necessity of attending to the discharge
of the functions of political Legislators ; and have
not the Bishops also spiritual and ecclesiastical
duties to perform, with which legislative labours,
and the contentions, intrigues, and anxieties
of political party, must seriously interfere ?
We are aware that the Bishops sit in the House of
Lords in right of certain feudal baronies supposed to
be connected with the episcopal lands of which they
have the investiture; for all baronies were originally
territorial, and the possession of certain castles and
lands gave the proprietor a right of summons to the
House of Peers, just as .Arundel Castle and its ter-
, ritory were decided to confer an Earldom on its
owner. But as all church property, and whatever is
incident to it belongs to the State, it is in the power
of Parliament, constitutionally exercised, to regulate
that property in the way that appears most condu-
cive to the interests of the established religion, and

ing been so faithless and cruel to the cause of Re-
form as to dissuade the pure and virtuous Noblemen
we have mentioned from perseverance in their prac-
tice, Dublin can expound the sense of the people no
more. Liverpool, ►when an election cost each can-
didate above a plum, was an infallible index of
national feeling; but now that the House of com-
mons has gently but effectually hinted that a less
considerable sum might well suffice, Liverpool is an
isolated, detached, insignificant place, whose suffrages
ought to go for nothing. Darsetshire, again, so
long as bludgeon-men had free play, was an epitome
of England; but now that the energies of these
very effective Reformers have been paralysed, what
signifies Dorsetshire ? And when we have the
happiness, which we suppose will be early in the
next week, of announcing the return of an honest
Tory for Cambridgeshire, we suppose we shall be told
that since the last general election a pestilent Uni-
versity has sprung up in the county to pervert
the minds of the people, and that therefore
Cambridgeshire ought not to be reckoned as a part
of Great Britain. The Reformers are truly in a
pitiable plight, and we can see only one course
which is left them to pursue if they wish the morti-
fying fact to be concealed that the country has
wholly deserted them. They must get up meetings
of their mob auxiliaries t,l petition the King and
Earl Grey—we beg pardon for the Tory transpo-
sition, we should have said Earl Grey and the King
—to convene Parliament at the earliest possible
moment, riot to pass the Reform Bill, but to pass a
short Parliamentary measure, for which the neces-
sity is more obvious and urgent to protect the cause
of Reform from utter discredit and disgrace, by en-
acting that until " the Bill, the whole Bill, and
nothing but the Bill," shall have passed both Houses
of Parliament and received the Royal assent, the
franchise of every voter in England shall be sus-
pended who will not swear at the hustings, in addi-
tion to the usual oaths, that " the Bill" is an ema-
nation of perfect wisdom and justice. Such a mea-
sure as this is manifestly necessary, as a winch to
the windlass of Reform, which at present seems to
be running round in the wrong direction with a ter-
rible rapidity.—Mourning Post.