The Sun.
London, England, 1833-06-17 00:00:00

; I the Peerage. It is to be observed that this propo-
.sition goes only to limit the legislatorial power of
the Lords : their rank, titles, orders, and other gew-
I gaws of distinction, might remain as before. But,
in like manner as the Scotch Peers are elected by
the members of their own body to represent them,
so might the British Peerage also meet to elect their
representatives. The anomaly of the absolute ir-
responsibility of the House of Lords would thus be
got rid of. The Peers elected to Parliament would
be simply trustees for the body to which they be-
long, and responsible to that body for the execu-
tion of their trust. There is one objection to this
scheme, the force of which we do not mean to dis-
semble. It is certainly possible that, as the Scotch
Peers at the last election returned a compact phalanx
of Conservatives, so the British Peers might return
none but anti-popular and prejudiced men to repre-
sent them. But this part of the plan must be taken in
connection with that which suggests the propriety of a
large creation of Peers for life—liberal and enlightened
men of course. It would be also an indispensable part
of the scheme that the twenty-six Bishops should
cease to be legislators. The Times suggests a very
simple mode of accomplishing this—namely, by re-
pealing the Act of Charles 11., which reseated them
in the Lords as Temporal Peers, after their well-
deserved expulsion in the reign of his father. The
same object could be accomplished in connexion
with the reform of the church, by compelling them
to tend their flocks--to constant residence in their
own dioceses. Almost all these Bishops are bad
senators in every sense. Their expulsion would
benefit both church and state, and do harm to no
mortal breathing.
All these measures, it will be said, are merely
palliatives ; the grand effectual remedy would be
the total abolition of the House of Lords. The
Examiner of last Sunday stated this broadly enough
—" If the institution be useful and trustworthy,
leave it free to work according to its discretion; if
it be antagonist to the public interest, depose it."
As the Examiner thinks the House of Lords is nei-
ther useful nor trustworthy, the alternative which
it would recommend is obvious.
It may one day come to this : but we imagine the
public mind is not yet ripe for any such measure as
the total abrogation of the Peerage. That, in the
event of the abolition of the present House of Peers,
it would be advisable to provide some substitute in
the shape of a Second Chamber or Senate, chosen
by the people, after the fashion of the United States,
will be generally admitted. Were such a Senate
composed of men of superior acquirements, more
gravity of character, and of a higher standing than
those sent to the House of Commons, the advan-
tages to be derived from it would soon be apparent.
Into such an assembly several of the Peers would
find admittance.

We are not part;al to the discussion of changes of
this description in our form of government. We
h►d rather make the three estates of the realm the

instruments of practical good to the nation, by judi-
cious, and not violent, reforms in their modes of
working. But the folly arid obstinacy of the ma-
jority of the House of Peers render some momen-
tous experiment upon the constitution of their body
absolutely necessary ; and the way to render it prac-
ticable and safe is, to prepare the public mind for it
by discussions conducted with temper and gravity,
and a total absence of mere party feeling and preju-
dice.—Spectator.