The Sun.
London, England, 1834-08-15 00:00:00

THE MI LONDON, FIZIDAY, AUGUST 1.5, 1834.

justice within the po,?ulo us sphere of its jurisdiction, and
afford a useful exam' Ile -to every other part of the kingdom.
" To the imports: tre subjects of our Jurisprudence and
of our Muncipal Cori mtations your attention will naturally
be directed early in tl. vie next Session. You may always rest
assured of my disposi ti On to co-operate with you in such
useful reformations.

" GENTLEMEN OF THE HOUSE OF COMMONS,
" I thank you for the readiness with which you have
granted the Supplies•
The Estimates said before you were somewhat lower
than those of former yea rs, although they included several
extraordinary charges which will not again occur : the same
course of economy wi] R still be steadily pursued.
" The continual inc. cease of the Revenue, notwithstanding
the repeal of so many to aes, affords the surest proof that the re-
sources of the country are unimpaired, and justifies the expec-
tation that a perseverance in judicious and well considered
measures will still further promote the industry and augment
the wealth of my peopl6e.

• " MY LORDS AND GENTLEMEN,

" It gives me great g.-atification tobelieve, that in return-
ing to your several counties you will find a preva-
lence of general tranquillity, and of active industry,
among all classes of society. I humbly hope that
Divine Providence will vouchsafe a continuance and
increase of these whl mlsinzs ; and in any circumstances
which may arise, I sh ill rely with confidence upon your
zeal and fidelity, and I ...42st satisfied that you will inculcate
and encourage that obedience to the laws, and that ob-
servance of the duties of religion and morality, which are
the only secure foundatrions of the power and happiness of

empires."

Parliament has this 6ay finsshed the business of the
Session. The Houses have now sitten about six
months and alialf, and though they have gone through
a great deal of routine business, made considerable re-
ductions of expenditure, and discussed several impor-
tant questions, we can recollect only one great Bill which
they have carried. The Session of 1831-2 hed
its one Bill, and the same may be said of 1834.
This has not arisen from want of subjects, nor, we
are inclined to think, from any want of willingness on
the part of the Government, but from the doubts they
had of the concurrence of the Upper House, and the
time occupied 1.1 the discussions of motions which led
to no result. There are three questions about which
the public are more interested than even the amend-
ment of the poor laws ; yet one of them has not been
brought forward at all, and the other two were simply
introduced rather for the purpose of showing the
wishes of the Government, than with any, even the
slightest, hope of seeing them passed this Session.
These subjects are the abolition of tithes in England,
the redress of " gross abuses" in the Church, and
Municipal Corporation Reform. With the exception
of passing some Estimates, the Commons did nothing
up to Easter but indulge in long debates on petitions ;
they afterwards passed some useful measures. The
Lords did absolutely nothing—not even talk, till about
a month ago, and then they began in good earnest to
undo almost every thing the Commons had done.
With the exception of the Old Bailey Court Bill, and
the defunct' Coercion Bill, every measure has ori-
ginated in the Commons ; and with the exception of
the Poor Laws' Amendment Bill, they have not
allowed any one of importance to pass. They have
thrown them out without ceremony, or introduced
clauses which they knew the Commons could not
assent to—both modes of proceeding being alike fatal
to the measures. The Lords, through their organ the
LORD CHANCELLOR, boast that they are the only
branch of the Legislature where the details of mea-
sures can receive calm and deliberate attention, and
that if there had been no House of Lords to make
amendments for the last two years, the House
of Commons must have stopped its legislation, or been
covered with blunders and absurdities. This description
of a reformed House of Commons, coming from the
quarter it did, must have been highly gratifying to-the
Ultra-Tory Peers. " Veneration for such an assem-
bly" can be regarded only as wicked sarcasm, or, if it
has a direct meaning, can apply only to the walls of
the House, hallowed by the acts of a slavish, corrupt,
venal, rotten borough, and unreformed House of Com-
mons. There can be no veneration for a House that
has lasted but two years, and been guilty of so many
blunders. If, however, there is any truth in the re-
' mark, what excuse is there for the idleness of the
only efficient branch of the Legislature, this model of
wisdom, and the corrector of the blunders and absurdi-
ties of the other? Can there be any doubt, that in the
law, the Church, and Municipal Corporations, gross
abuses exist, and require a speedy remedy ; yet what
have the Lords done this Session ?—absolutely no-
thing. They have allowed these abuses to go on, and
they still would go on but for the spirit and energy of
that other House which had been described as totally
unfit for legislation. If the charge is true, then it is
the imperative duty of the other House to bring
in a
,Bill to undo this work of Reform, and re-
store the House of Commons to its pristine state
of purity and usefulness. Never, however, was
charge more unfounded. Sir ANDREW AGNEW and
some few others, have brought
in Bills full of absur-
dity, and some clauses of an objectionable nature have
been inserted in Bills towards the close of the. Ses-
sion when the interested parties only attended; but be-
cause there are a few fanatics and fools in the House; is
that to be a plea for stigmatising all the 658, as men
constantly striving with one another, and incapable of
giving their calm and deliberate attention to any
measure ? The number—the importance, .and the
beneficial tendency of the acts of last Session prove
directly the contrary. In the memory of man
four such important measures never passed in one
session as the Abolition of Slavery, the Irish Church
Reform, the Bank Charter, and the East India Char-
ter Bills, all of which originated in the Commons,
and received no amendments of the slightest import-
ance in the Lords. This session but one principal
Bill has gone through the ordeal of the Lords un-
scathed, chiefly because it had nothing in it of a
political tendency. That Bill received its spirit and
corporeal form from the Commons, and though attacked
by all the' Tory Press—all the Radical—some
of the liberal, and two of the most widely-circulated
London papers, with every possible term of vitupera-
tion, reproach, and threat which the most fertile and
malignant imagination could invent--though praise
was lavished on Members that opposed it, whom
these papers hitherto had mentioned only to turn into
ridicule, and a crown of glory was held up to any
man of note that would throw out " the atrocious
Bill," the great body of the House of Commons re-
garded their praise and their blame alike—discussed
the Bill with calmness and deliberation, and passed it
(with the exception of one important clause, which
this paper always opposed) but little altered, and cer-
tainly not impaired. On no former occasion did the
press ever take up such a false position, or pursue a
course so calculated to destroy its influence on the
public mind.
The proceedings of the Commons, on the whole,

have been satisfactory in all instances where the
Lords could not interfere. They;, have reduced the
/
navy, the ordnance, and the mis cellaneous estimates,
by nearly half a million ; they have taken off the house
duty, and repealed a great number of smaller taxes ;
they have besides shown their determination to root
out abuses in every department; and though the Lords
may malign them, the people will support them, and
by the end of next session we confidently hope to
see many Of these abuses redressed.

The more we consider the conduct of the Tory-
Lords in rejecting the Irish Tithe Bill, the more in-
fatuated and inexplicable it apyears.
_

Try it by what test we please, look at its immediate
or its ultimate consequences,---the danger incurred,---
the good sacrificed, and it is difficult to discover the or-
dinary characteristics of sanity in the proceedings of
their Lordships.

They profess the deepest regard for the clergy, and
they condemn them to starvation ; they reject a bill
which would have insured them, without trouble,
danger, or collision with their parishioners, 80 per cent.
of their present nominal incomes, and they throw them
back for subsistence on the act of 1832, the inefficiency
of which Mr. STANLEY, himself its author, was con-
strained to acknowledge. His devotedness to the
church no man can doubt ; his efforts to enforce the
law no man can deny : nevertheless he failed ; with all
his admitted skill, vigour, and determination, he failed—
though aided by horse, foot, and pclice,—he failed.
The tithe composition was imposed and made general
by his act, but it was not—it could not—be collected.
The vigilance and ingenuity of a peasantry stimulated
by want were too much for him ; and in the following
year he was compelled to come to Parliament, and, in
the name of a suffering clergy, implore for them pecu-
niary relief. What has happened since ? Have the people
seen the error of their ways ? Has successful resistance
taught them obedience ? Haas a cessation of a hated tax
rendered its renewal more palatable ? Will the know-
ledge that the House of Commons had decreed them
relief from 40 per cent. of the tithe composition, recon-
cile them to the payment Of the full amount—and not
only to the full amount, but in addition, to the arrears
of 1831; 1832, and 1833, one-fifth part of which may
be levied in November, 1834? Noble Lords and
Reverend Prelates talk of enforcing the law ; but the
law is not resisted. Signals in every direction give
notice of the approach of its officers ; the cattle are
locked up ; the wretched cabin contains nothing worth
taking, and a stray pig, duck, or gosling, led captive
by cavalry and infantry, is the triumphant result of the
enforcement of the law. But if the law is to be en-
forced, it ought to be done with an impartial hand. By
the act of 1833, the parson becomes liable for the re-
payment of the first instalment of the advance made to

him under the same act. Do Reverend Bishops insist
upon this being enforced ?

The immediate, but not the sole consequence of such
a state of things, will be inevitable ruin to the Clergy.
Will Peers and Prelates open their mansions and their
palaces to shelter the men whom they are about to
reduce to beggary ? In justice and in mercy they cannot
refuse to relieve the wretchedness which they will have
themselves created. But the Clergy will not be the
only sufferers by this act of incredible folly. The
people of England, have some interest at stake.
We are condemned to renew a cruel, harassing, and
unprofitable contest with the peasantry—to maintain
a large and expensive force, utterly useless for its
object—to see every effort for the amelioration of
Ireland frustrated, and every attempt to soothe an
irritated and long-oppressed people end in bitter dis-
appointment.

The means of tranquilizing that unhappy country
were placed within our reach—we seized them with
avidity and gratitude, but just as the cup of expectation
is raised to our lips it is again dashed to the ground—
and by whom ? by men whose political opinions are
repudiated by the great body of their countrymen, but
who, nevertheless, possess the dangerous and fatal
power of strangling every measure of reform sent to them
by the Representatives of the people. We venture to tell
them that within a year they will shrink from the fearful
responsibility of this very act, and, flying from the
resistance they have provoked, will attempt to purchase
at a much greater sacrifice, but, unhappily, when too
late, those blessings which they now so recklessly and so
madly cast away. The people of England, disgusted
with the eternal repetition of their follies, will not en-
dure them much longer.
The rejection, this Session, of every measure having
a liberal tendency, and, above all, the fate of this Bill,
are the legitimate, but unfortunate consequences of the
combination of an hereditary House of Parliament
with one chosen as the House of Commons now is.
A creation of Peers would be a temporary, but in
many respects an unwise mitigation of the evil. It is
only to be removed by a change in the constitution of
the Upper House, and this the country will by and by
demand, in the same spirit of determination which
secured to them the Reform of the House of Commons.

The Debates in the Chamber of Procuradores or
Spanish Deputies, which we have given from the Times
of to-day, cannot but make a deep and lasting impres-
sioiVon the people of this country. Spain is at length
beginning to rouse herself—she is starting out of the
lethargy of " contented ignorance" in which, despite of
the revolution of 1812, and the spirit awakened by the
constitution of Cadiz, she so long slumbered. The ex-
treme liberality of popular opinion cannot be better proved
than by the double defeat of M. DE LA ROSA and
the Ministry on the address prepared by the Com-
mittee of the Chamber in answer to the Queen's speech.
The first division arose on the amendment, that the
address be returned to the Committee for re-considera-
it was notoriously imperfect.
tion, thereby implying
This arbitrary attempt to reject opinions, without the
formality of discussion, was warmly opposed, and the
amendment, though supported by Ministers, rejected
by a majority of 48 to 36. The next division was
on the adoption of the Address as a whole, and here
aaain the Liberals in opposition were triumphant.
The chief interest of the debate, however, is centered
in the discussion which arose on the clauses respecting
the insurrection in Spain, and the liberty of 'the press,
and trial by jury. The Ministry appeared to entertain
the most fearful apprehensions of the evils which would
follow the abolition of the censorship of the press, in
a country which, according to them, was not sufficiently
advanced in knowledge to exercise a wise judgment on
political subjects indiscriminately submitted to it.
This reasoning was well replied to by the opposition,
who maintained that all systems were adopted not
because they were perfect in themselves, but because
the certain good derived from them far exceed d the
greatest possible amount of barely conjectural and possi-
ble evil. In this country there is hardly a necessity of no-
ticing this. Yet we may ourselves be allowed to observe,