The Sun.
London, England, 1835-07-27 00:00:00

SPIRIT OF THE PUBLIC JOURNALS.

The political interest of the country in the proceed-
ings of the Legislature will this week be transferred
from the Commons to the Lords. We do not appre-
hend that the Irish Tithe Bill will meet with any fur-
ther opposition of a serious nature in the Lower
House. The Tories, after the division on Friday
morning, will not venture on any combined division,
and Sir Robert Peel is unlikely to risk his personal
station by opposing the third reading. We understand
that the Irish Corporation Bill will be introduced in
the Commons this evening. After the full discussion
of the English Bill, we do not apprehend any great
difficulty in the passing of the twin measure through
the Commons. Its fate in the Upper House we
will not at present predicate ; but we cannot
believe, that, under all circumstances, the Peers
will reject the Irish Bill, and thus render Ireland
an implacable enemy to the Aristocracy, by denying to
it the same measure of Municipal Reform which must
be conceded to England. In the meanwhile a prelimi-
nary meeting was held, on Saturday, of the Tory
Lords, at Apsley House, where nearly 100 of them
assembled to interchange opinions on the subject of
the forthcoming Bills. The Ministerial measure of
Corporate Reform—their first consideration—was the
principal matter of discussion. The more acute leaders
of the Opposition are happily satisfied that they cannot
safely take the Government, however anxious the
fanatics and place-hunters may be to turn out a Liberal
Administration. Sir Robert Peel and the Duke of
Wellington know that they cannot honourably involve
the King in the mad adventure of a second violent change
of popular Ministers. If they attempt such a coup d'etat
a second time, they must again resort to the revolu-
tionary expedient of another dissolution of Parliament.
The effect of this, in further exasperating the people,
they are at no loss to discern, and, moreover, they
know that they could not by any extreme acts of bri-
bery, Election corruption, or a cry of " No Popery,"
obtain a House of Commons suitable to Toryism. In
short, they have discovered that laying " violent
hands" on the Government would infallibly destroy the
Conservative party. The discerning Tories perceive
that " a change of Ministry" effects nothing for their
principles—that the rejection of liberal measures re-
produces reform in a more formidable shape every suc-
ceeding year, and that time only more and more exposes
the decline of the power of the oligarchy who lately ruled
the country, and who still vainly hope to regain their
late influence. We therefore confidently anticipate a
more peaceable and successful termination of the ses-
sion than was lately apprehended. Ministers have
gained great confidence and deserved popularity in the
country by the honesty and moderation of their mea-
sures. Those party men who, under present circum-
stances, would advise the Sovereign causelessly, by a
wanton exercise of prerogative held only in trust for
the people, to dismiss the Melbourne Cabinet, and to
agitate the nation by another general election, con-
voked by Tory successors, we should designate as
traitors and destructives. The Duke of Wellington,
though a bigoted politician, is not a disloyal subject,
and as an experienced general will not fight a_ battle
with certain defeat before him. We have yet to
learn that his Grace will prefer the extinction of the
Irish Church by the rejection of the Tithe Bill to the
admission of the principle of appropriation. On the
Corporation Bill the Duke of Wellington opposed
himself on Saturday to the Ultra Peers of his party,
who, headed by the Duke of Newcastle—the Cory-
plixus of rotten Corporations—proposed at Apsley-
house the rejection of the Municipal Bill. We do not
doubt that a considerable number of the Tory Peers,
if not better advised, would willingly risk anything
rather than pass the essentials of the Bill. Several
Noble Orators at the meeting questioned the good
sense of the Duke of Wellington, and urged the
most violent course. The utmost compromise which
reason could produce at this meeting was an un-
derstanding of the majority that they would not
divide on the second reading. 'We doubt whe-
ther all the Corporation-mongers will observe the
compact ; and we must wait the result of the discus-
sion on Tuesday before we can divine the intention
of the Lords as to the main principles of the measure.
In the meanwhile, it is our sincere hope that the
Peers will take warning by the memorable lesson read
them in 1832. Their real enemies ardently desire
that they should reject the Corporate Bill ; and those
who desire the downfall of the Church Establishment,
devoutly pray that they may also refuse the Irish
Tithe Bill. If the Peers, spiritual and temporal, are
well advised, they will not run counter to the " spirit
of the age," or place themselves in hopeless and dan-
gerous collision with the people. We are not essen-
tially an anti-aristocratic nation, but the Lords may
very soon change the popular sentiment. If they wish
to undermine their order, they will mutilate the Cor-
poration Bill.—Morning chronicle.
The Bill for abolishing imprisonment for debt has
at length passed through the Committee ; but we re-
gret that there are still serious grounds of apprehen-
sion that the Session will expire before it shall have
passed into a law. Several Hon. Members, in the
course of the discussion, seemed to think it impossible
that it could go through all its stages this Session ;
but if the Government will persevere only half as stre-
nuously with this measure, than which few can be of
greater importance, as they S :91 disposed to do with
the Irish Tithe Bill, there c:Annot be any difficulty
whatever in its future progress.. An objection was
made in the course of the discussion to the fourth
clause of the Bill, which struck us as having much
weight. It was said that nothing could he more un-
just than to call upon a defendant to find sureties for
debt and costs within ten days after the commence-
ment of a suit, if the plaintiff could make out a prima
facie case of debt on affidavit. It was said that a de-
fendant might have a perfectly good case, and yet be
unable to get security for debt and costs, in which case
judgment would be signed against him. At the first
blush this would appear to be monstrous ; but, on re-
ferring to the whole clause, we find that an alternative
is given to the defendant, of which he may much more
easily avail himself. The object of the clause is clearly
to prevent a debtor from putting his plaintiff to the
expense of a trial, where he has no plea either in law
or equity, to resist payment ; but still we doubt if the
terms of the clause will not, as they at present stand,
open up an evil which has not been at all contemplated
by the framers of the Bill. The clause runs thus :
" And be it enacted, that if the plaintiff, in any action for
any debt, shall, after suit commenced in any Court, show by
affidavit that the sum sought to be recovered in such action is
due to him from the defendant and on what account, and that
demand before action brought was made upon the defendant
for the payment of the sum so due, such plaintiff shall, after
service of process on the defendant, be entitled to a rule of
the Court in which such suit is commenced, or order of the
Judge of such Court, giving the defendant notice that final
judgment will be signed against him for the sum sworn to be
due, unless such defendant shall, within ten days after the ser-
vice of the rule or order, give security, to be approved by an
officer of such Court, for the payment of the debt and costs,
in case final judgment shall be given against him, or unless the
defendant shall, within the said time, show sufficient cause on
oath why final judgment should not be signed against him,
and that such judgment shall not be so signed, unless the said
defendant shall either give such security or show such suffi-
cient cuuse."
There is some vagueness about the latter part of the
clause. We cannot understand very distinctly what is
meant by the words " unless the defendant shall within
the said time shew sufficient cause on oath." There
appear to us to be two objections to those words. Is
it the defendant's own oath that is to be admissible, or
is he to be compelled to produce the oaths of witnesses
who may not be within his reach during the limited
period of ten days ? We presume that the framers of
the Bill mean that the defendant should be obliged
either to give security for debt or costs, or to swear
that he has a good defence, in order to avoid the other
alternative of having judgment signed against him.
In this we see nothing wrong ; but this is not what
the clause implies. On the contrary it would appear
as if he were bound to adduce all his proof of his
non-liability, or have judgment signed against him.
Neither is this all that it implies, for when we ask
the stibn, Who is to decide as to the sufficiency of
to cause shown ? a new light breaks in upon us, and
/ ,tie-find that in actions for simple contract debts the
4whole machinery of trial by Jury is to be set aside
.
that Juries are to be superseded by, we presume, a
Judge at Chambers. This, we believe, cannot be the
object of the framers of the Bill. They cannot mean
that a Judge is to hare the power of declaring whe-

•