The Sun.
London, England, 1834-04-29 00:00:00

~•

LONDON,
TUESDAY EVENING, APRIL 29, 1834.

We direct the attention of our readers to the
observations of the LORD CHANCELLOR last
night on the subject of the Trades' Unions.
They are full fraught with sound sense, and
proceeding, as they do, from the lips of the
highest law authority in the empire, will, we
trust, be productive of beneficial results. The'
members of the Trades' Unions will do well to
lay them to heart, and turn from their present
misguided courses, which, if persevered in, can
have but one termination—the ruin of all en,
gaged in them. The CHANCELLOR'S remarks
are conceived in the best possible spirit of kind-
ness and charity towards the productive classes.

So we are to have a repetition of the East
Retford business in the House of Lords on the
Warwick Borough Bill—the examination of
some sixty or seventy witnesses, the expense of
bringing them up and keeping them in town—
the same protracted examination and discus-
sions, and probably the same result. The pro-
ceedings are to commence on Friday; when they
will end no one can tell. The expenses of the
East Retford Bill for witnesses alone cost about
8,0001., and after all this expense, and much un-
necessary delay, the constituency was but little
altered, and left nearly in the hands of the same
patron. The same will probably be the case
with most of the disfranchisement bills now
before Parliament. The Lords know nothing
of reform, in the true sense of the word.
While the one house is gradually advan-
cing, stage after stage, on the high-road
of improvement, the other is at a stand-still,
or owes any occasional advances, not to its own
locomotive power, but to the rough jolts of its
more enterprising neighbour. It is high time
to put an end to this double expense in almost
every-thing connected with the business of the
hro houses. Many hundreds of thousands had
the country paid for duplicates of papers for
the Lorok: which conferred no benefit on any
one, except the printer, and no effectual at-
tempt was ever made to alter the system,
till this Session. Now a great saving will
be made—many thousands a year on printing
alone, and we can see no reason why the same
rule should not apply to the mode of taking
evidence on election petitions. By allowing
each house to appoint its own counsel, to
watch the examination of witnesses, and di-
recting the evidence to be given on oath, one
report would be satisfactory to both, and
great expense saved. Evidence has been
taken on the Warwick Bill amply suffi-
cient to satisfy every impartial judge
that the borough is notoriously corrupt,
yet we are to have all the evidence repeated, to
the delay of public business, and with a large
additional expense to the country. There are
some half-a-dozen disfranchising bills before
Parliament now, the expense of which, for wit-
nesses, would cost probably 60,0001., over, and
above the expenses already incurred in the
Commons ; and that with the certainty, too,
that they will not be disposed of, either this or
next session, or disposed of in such a way as to
screen the guilty. If the Lords wish to pre-
serve the good opinion of their fellow-subjects,
they must keep pace with them. By lagging
too far behind, they will be forgotten or
despised.

A bill has been brought in by Mr. O'Corr-
NELL " to improve the navigation of the rivers,
lakes, and estuaries in Ireland?' This is its
title and its professed purpose, but its provi_