The Sun.
London, England, 1832-03-08 00:00:00

gratified. That the retainers of the Ministry should
persist in attempting to prop up Lord Plunket is no
doubt injudicious. Nothing can be more detrimen-
tal to the character of the Administration. It
would be indeed utterly incomprehensible (for
never more can the Noble and Learned Lord be of
the least value to any party), if we did not recol-
lect that there are some striking points of similarity
between his conduct and that of the head of the
Administration. The latter of course cannot be
deserted. But there are distinctions nevertheless
between the two cases which might, one would
think, absolve the adherents of the Premier from
the ignominious necessity of defending the whole
conduct of the Lord Chancellor of Ireland. The
distinctions it is perhaps felt are the result of posi-
t:on rather than of any other cause. And it must
be admitted that the Prime Minister of England has
but little temptation to usurp patronage not belong-
ing to his office.—Morning Post.

The discussions in the House of Commons last
night turned almost entirely upon the propriety of
agreeing to the motion of the Chancellor of the
Exchequer, for continuing the present duties on
sugar, or of partially reducing them. That a re-
duction has become necessary, if the state of the
revenue could possibly allow it, in consequence of
the depreciated value of West Indian property and
produce, no one can possibly doubt; but on the other
hand, if it be not possible, consistently with the
interests of the revenue and honesty to the public
creditor, there is at once an end to the matter; and
on this ground, in consequence, we are prepared to
defend the policy of his Majesty's Ministers. Lord
Althorp informed the House that he had every in-
clination to afford the most ample protection to the
West India grower of sugar, and that he had a plan
in preparation whereby the British public would be
enabled to consume a greater quantity of his produce,
and of course to extend a greater benefit to him
than he could possibly derive from the partial modi-
fication of the duty on sugar which was proposed;
and as a proof of his sincerity, he only called on
Parliament for a six months' vote. This candid
statement, however, met with no approbation from
the thick-and-thin opponents of the Government,
whose object was annoyance and delay ; and the
consequence was that almost the whole of the time
of the House was consumed in discussing, whether
it would be better to make a reduction now, which
would be of no benefit, or to wait for six months
for one of a more extensive and beneficial character.
Mr. Hume, we are snrprised to observe, formed part
of the phalanx which made head against his Ma-
jesty's Ministers. He could not surely have seen
the snare which was purposely laid to entrap him.—
Morning Advertiser.

The questions which, sometime ago, agitated the
public mind, and were the subject of discussion in
all quarters, were, first, " What will the Lords do?"
and next, " What shall be done with the Lords?"
but those which now occupy the public mind are,
" What will Earl Grey do ?" and " What shall be
done with the Bishops ?" should they again attempt
to aid a miserable faction in its attempt to deprive
the people of England of their just rights. With
regard to Earl Grey, he will of course exercise the
authority with which the King has invested him,
of creating as many Peers as circumstances may ren-
der necessary. On this head no doubt need be en-
tertained. The Hotspur of the House of Com-
mons is not likely to become the " impotent" or
" irresolute" Member of the House of Lords;
and were motives necessary to awake the
energy for which he .has always been distin-
guished, it cannot be denied that he has mo-
tives enough; first, in the inexorable hosti-
lity of his opponents ; and, secondly, in the
care which a man of Lord Grey's talents and
political virtue must necessarily have for his own
fame. The creation or non-creation of Peers—the
passing or the rejection of the Bill—is the test by
which, of all others, he will be tried. The one
confers honour and immortality—the other is certain
ruin and disgrace; and can he doubt for a moment
which side it is either his own interest, or that of
the country to adopt ? With regard to the Bishops,
they are, under certain circumstances, a species of
heavy artillery, which it is not easy to move over
difficult passes, or to find a safe passage for over
quagmires ; but they may nevertheles be dealt with,
as Parliament has dealt with them before—that is,
in the way of censure—in case they should change
the garments of charity for the raiments of political
sin, as will be seen from the following extracts from
the " Lex Parliamentaria," with which we have
been favoured by a correspondent :

POWER OF PARLIAMENT.
" What has been, may be."
1 Jac. L-1603. The Bishop of Bristol published
a hook, tending to make division anti strife, wrong and
dishonour, both to the Lower House and the Lords them.
selves, was complai❑ed of by the Commons to the Lords,
and he made his recantation—

Ist. That be had erred.
2d. That he was sorry for it.
3d. If it were to do again, he would not do it.
4th. But protested, it was done in ignorance, and not
of malice.

Note.—A case of Dr. Burnett, Bishop of Salisbury,
who, for wilting and publishing a book, entitled " King
William and Queen Mary, Conquerors," was censured
in Parliament, and, as I think, on the Commons' address,
removed from being Preceptor to the Duke of Glouces-
ter, Scc.

Note.—Also Bishop Fleetwood's Preface, censured, and
burnt by order of the House of Commons. And also
see Nalson's Col. p. 9 and 43, ten Bishops at once sent to
the Tower by the House of Lords, &c.—Morn. Advertiser