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

would be very different ; but the measure in question is
•one upon which that House, from- the presence of its
spiritual Members, among other reasons, is peculiarly
qualified and called upon to deliberate, and we therefore
most decidedly deprecate any interference with that right
of deliberation, or any intemperate inference from its
supposed result.—Morning Herald.
We understand that the Lords are determined, before
the Church of Ireland Bill gives them the opportunity, to
afford a demonstration of their power, and their disposition
to use it. The discussion on the Local Courts Bill ccmes
on to night, and we understand that it is to be thrown
out by a considerable majority. Of course we shall hear
a variety of arguments, such as they are, against the Bill,
by Lord Eldon, and it will be opposed also by a man
possessed of a very different quality of intellect, Lord
Lyndhurst. He will no doubt urge the best arguments
that can be urged against the Bill ; but, after all, what do
they amount to ? We shall hear a great deal about the
degradation of the bench and bar, and the tendency of tl e
system to destroy the uniformity of law and procedure.
We shall bear a great deal too from Captain Hall, and
writers of his kidney, of the litigious disposition gene-
rated in America by cheap law, the advantages of ex-
pensive law in frightening parties into compromises, and
the risk which respectable country gentlemen would run
of being worried by actions tried by juries of envious
neighbours in little towns, and a number of other argu-
ments of this kidney. The advantage of the great body of
the people, now literally excluded from the courts and denied
justice, will go for nothing. Why should the people be
considered ? No man ought to go to law if he have
not a sufficiency of money to expend on lawyers of
a high grade, in order that the decision may be pro-
nounced after the utmost attention has been bestowed in
arguing the case. All who are without a sufficiency of
money to fee first rate barristers in London ought to re-
nounce all thoughts of entering Courts of Law. We must
not have cheap law but need law, and good law can only
be obtained by excluding all from redress who are not
able to pay largely for it. We recommend to the public
to watch well the movements of their LordNhips this
day. They will see from the temper of the Peers what
hope they can have of any thing really beneficial to the
people from Tory ascendancy. In this union between
professional selfishness and aristocratic arrogance, the
convenience of the middle and lower classes goes for no-
thimr. We defy any man to offer any argument in favour
of a denial of justice to the mass of the community, which
any men of plain understandings (having no professional
or party bias) would not instantly reject. What, for in-
stance, would the people of Scotland say, who have the
benefit of Local Courts which can decide causes of any
amount, if it were propoeed to abolish them, and to place
Scotland on the footing of Eng'and ? Why, the people
would to a man rise against any such attempt. But be-
cause the p. ogle of England have hitherto In en sacrificed
to aristocratical pride and professional monopoly, is that a
reason, now that they have representatives who can give
effect to their wishes, that they should continue to he
treated with contempt and insult—why they should be
worse off with respect to justice than the Scotch ?
Morning Chronicle.

Nothing can exceed the rage and disappointment of the
Destructives at the slightest attempt practically to assert
the ancient doctrine that the British Constitution is one
of independent and balanced powers. These gentry first
fl lter themselves that they have procured a House of
Commons which they can urge to any extreme of profli-
gacy, and even treason, arid then assert that all the power
of the State should be concentrated in that House, to the
total and contemptuous exclusion of the co-ordinate au-
thority of the King and the Peers. Was this, after all,
the real meaning of the boasted Reform Bill? We always
knew, and duly and constantly warned the people, that
such was its tendency ; but we scircely expected that the
nefarious design should be so suddenly and impudently
avowed as ripe for execution. Yet we r joice that such
is the case, and we trust that, as the public enemy has
brought on the collNion, and challenged the controversy,
the mighty question involved will not be allowed to sleep
till it be finally settled upon principles level to the appre-
hension of erery man in the kingdom. Let the
question be fairly met, without subterfuge or equi-
vocation, and not at some indefinite future time, but
now. The Times broadly asserts the principle that the
existence of any authority independent of the House of Com-
mons is equivalent to the "absolute extinction of that
Assembly," and calls upon the House to put this principle
on record " instanter " by a formal vote ; the assertion of
the contrary principle it represents as "a direct war upon
the nation," which ought to he resisted to the last ex-
tremity. Now we are sure that we may venture, on be-
half of all that is conservative and constitutional (for the
terms are now convertible) in the land, to join issue with
the Destructives upon this single point, are we to have
one power in the Constitution, or three powers ? The
doctrine of the Times—we shall not minee the matter—
points distinctly to the destruction of the Peerage, and the
overthrow of the Monarchy, with the natural, if not ne-
cessary, accompaniments of civil war, and the uprearing,
for a second time, at Whitehall, of a Republican scaffold,
to be steeped in Royal blood. We are content to put the
question first to the tenpound householders, and next to
the people of England at large, whether this be what is
intended by the reform of the Constitution ? Let
all men choose, we say, and let none be neutral, be-

tween King, Lords, and Commons, each guaranteed
in the independent exercise of their proper functions,
and the unchecked and remorseless domination of a Ja-
cobin club. We protest, however, against any misrepre-
sentation of the real question at issue. The Peers simply
claim to exercise rights which have devolved upon them
through a series of ages, and which they have no power
to relinquish, without the abandonment of a most sacred
public trust ; and who, we ask, but traitors to their
country, and apostates from all principle, can possibly be
found to oppose this claim ? If the Peers have failed to
perform their duties, let the fact be proved. and the
guilty parties held up to merited disgrace. If the cir-
cumstances of the world have so alt-red, as that a House
of Lords is no longer a valuable part of the constitution,
let a Bill be forthwith brought in for its abolition. But
so long as the Pe. rs shall remain in possession of legal
and constitutional rights, every honest man• is bound, as
be tenders the well-being of his country, and the very
existence of social order, to support them i❑ the unfet-
tered exercise of those rights. This is not a question of
reform, for reform is carried, and the enraptured mu;ti-
tude hive long since entered into full possession of " the
Bill, the whole Bill, and nothing but the Bill.' Nor does
the present question respect any of the legitimate and avowed
fruits of the Bill, for they were all alleged to be perfectly
compatible with the free and unquestioned exercise of the
rights and privileges of the Peers : we were to have reform,
not revolution, and reform to prevent not to precipitate re-
, volution. Neither can it in this case be said that any
particular measure, loudly called for by the general voice
of the people, is placed in jeopardy by the particular vote
anticipated from the Peers, for the Irish Church Reform
Bill has never, to our knowledge, won the special admira-
tion of any of the parties, political or religious, into which
this versatile nation has the happiness of being divided.
But then the opposition of the Peers would affect the sta-
bility of the popular Whig Ministers. We beg pardon,
but in our ignorance we thought, judging from the press,
from public meetings, from various elections, and from
general report, that less popan Ministers never existed.
Be this, however, as it may, their existence is not neces-

. -
sarily compromised by au adverse vote, and they hive.
proved themselves to possess in a remarkable degree the
faculty of adhering to office in defiance, not only of the
House of Lords, but of the intelligence and general feeling
of the country. Any objection, therefore, to the indepen-
dent exercise of the rights of the Peers upon the present
occasion c m only be regarded as a wanton, and malignant,
and treasonable attack, by whomsoever urged, upon the
most sacred principles of the Constitution. We leive it to
the country to decide whether such an attack shall be
successful.—Morning Post.
Upon what grounds, let us ask these Tory conspirators,
do they calculate upon turning out the present Adminis-
tration, and a successful usurpation of their places ? Is
it upon their unpopularity? There is some plea for the
existence of such a ground of hope; for the Ministers,
by their too great leaning to Toryism, have unquestionably
lost much of the popularity which they so justly deserved
from the passing of the Reform Act ; but are they, the
Tories themselves, more popular? Hive they become
favourites with the people in proportion as the harts cf
the latter have turned away from the Whigs? Has their

opposition, not only to the Reform Bill, but to every
measure of useful improvement and necessary eco-

nomy, endeared them to the country ? Or rather is
it mit the fact now, as it was two years ago, that they
have no support in the country—that they stand
precisely in the same unenviable relation to it as they
then did? Are they not the anthers of all the unne-

cessary pensions, and undeserved sinecures, as well as
of the enormous debt, which destroys the industry and
galls the spirit of the country ? And is it for these things
that it will support and cherish them? But, say they,
the King ant the Court are with us. Be it so; hut we
nevertheless 'question the fact. The King has hitherto
never been wanting in a clear perception both of his own
interests and of those of his country—on every great
occasion he has always been found equal to butt. ; and
until we have better evidence of the fact than we ).t poß-
ses, we will rot believe that he will act otherwise., 1:.:0 hie