The Sun.
London, England, 1828-01-31 00:00:00

change This question is asked, not in real,
but in affected ignorance. The late Admi-
nistration consisted of two parties, of

opposite opinions as to the proper i balance of
powers in the Constitution, and of course they
could not long-agree as to the properibalance of
power in the Cabinet. Perhaps they might have
continued to act together during fair weather, if
they could both have forgotten that storms might
probably arise, and that then the command of the
vessel of- the State would devolve upon the party
which had secured for itself the greatest ascend-
ancy during the calm. But this was found to
be impossible. It will always be so. Their
essential and well known difference of opinion,
as to the most fundamental doctrines of the Con-
stitution, necessarily rendered the two opposite
parties jealous of each other, and inspired each of
them with the desire, we ought perhaps rattier to
say the duty, 'of strengthening itself, and of en-
feebling its antagonist. Whatever details may
hereafter transpire as to the immediate causes of
the dissolution of the late Ministry, and in this

respect there certainly appears some disposition
to elude the natural curiosity of the public, we
feel convinced that they will be found to be no
other than certain illustrations or modifications

of the one great original permanent cause which
we have attempted to explain. The essential
distinction between the late Ministry and the
present is, that the one consisted of two parties,

each bound by its peculiar principles to
strengthen itself ; and that the other consists of
only one party, and can propose to itself there-
fore no other object than that of maintaining and
fortifying the character of the whole Admini-
stration by encreasing the welfare and promoting
the glory of the State.—Morning Post.

Amid the bustle and din of political conten•
tion, we are glad to see any thing like an earnest

attempt to press upon the attention of Parliamen

the domestic interests of this country—the most
important of which are undoubtedly those whirl
relate to the state of the laws and the administra•

tion of justice. It is with pleasure, therefore, we
find that Mr. Biougham availed himself of the
opportunity of the first night of the meeting of
Parliament to bring these most important.topics
under the eye of the House of Commons, by
giving notice that he should be prepared on
Friday, the 22d of February, to submit a motion,
having for its object to induce the House to con-
sider the present state of the law in this country,
and the manner in which it is administered in

the Courts, and to adopt those reforms whit
lime lies rendered necessary, and which ex,
perience points out as expedient.- Many, in-
deed, and extensive, are the reforms which time
has rendered necessary in our law, and which
experience points out to be expedient—and, be-
sides those, there are also certain abuses which
Nvcre nut interwoven with our system of law in
its original formation, nor long after, that ought
to be got rid of, at the same time that we set
about relbrining those points, which, however
I well adapted to a more primitive condition of
society, arc nut suited to the demands of modern
civilization. The system of specialptcading,, as it is
now conducted, is a corrupt excrescence, that has
grown lipoii the practice of the law ; an excrescence
which bringsgreat gain to the pleader—great delay
and expense to the suitor—great disgrace to jus-
tice. It is an evil that encumbers the principles of
justice, so as to resider them almost inoperative,
and has been complained of and endeavoured to
I be repressed by the greatest and most enlighten-
-led Judges that this country has ever seen. It is,
however, an evil so beneficial to lawyers, that it 1
has overlaid, in progress of time, all the sound
maxims of law, and has outgrown all judicial re-
monstrance. Among modern Judges, Chief
Justice Best deserves great and especial credit
for having discountenanced this prescriptive
abuse in the administration of law as much as
he poadbly could, and for having repeatedly and
emphatically expressed his disinclination to decide
cases, except upon their merits, where the tech-
ideal objections were such as he could, without
violence to the principles of law, surmount.
But, unless all the Judges co-operated in this
laudable purpose, little comparative good can be
done ; and it is impossible to expect complete
unity of purpose among them in this respect,
seeing that some of them were never known to
the public or the profession in any other way
than as Special Pleaders ; and their prejudices
will naturally lean in favour of the sort of prac-
tice in which they obtained success and distinct
tion. The only hope of an effective and per-
manent remedy, therefore, is from the Legisla-
ture. We hope, that, if Mr. Brougham does
not take up this part of the reformation of' the
law, some other active and persevering Member
of Parliament will. We hope that whosoever
takes it up will not make it a party question, to
enforce while he is out of power, and abandon
when he gets within prospect of office. This is
the. way that many projected improvements in
our institutions have conic to nothing of late
years. The Lou r,J' Libel is another subject
which affords an ample field for the exercise of
the labour and talents of an enlightened Legisla-
'.or.—.l/ornbig Hereld.
Among the communications made by Minis-
ters to Parliament on Tuesday last, was one of
the very first importance—we mean their inten-
tion or introducing a Corn Bill during the pre-
sent Session. The defects of the present Corn
Laws have often been commented on, and never
altogether denied. The greatest of these is,
that the doors of the importers' warehouses are,
as it were, hermetically sealed, until grain has
arrived at a certain price, and then thrown wide
open, to pour out the stores that have been
heaped up for months to deluge the market, and
by consequence, ruin the farmer and impoverish
the landlord. The Bill introduced by Mr.
Canning was professedly intended to remedy the
defects of the existing laws. He gave, he said
to the landholder, the advantage on the side of
price, and to the Jmonied interest, the advantage
on the side of principle.—The sentence was not
Very clear, any more than the plan which it was
intended to explain.—The principle was, that
the duty should decrease as the article rose in
price, and increase as it fell. It was not a prim,
ciple of free trade ; for it must be perfectly ob-
vious to the meanest capacity, that there is no
difFerence between prohibiting an article alto-
gether, and imposing a greater duty than it
fetches in the market. It was not a principle of
protection to the landlord or tenant, because it
left the importation of corn as absolutely open
after the price had risen to a. certain sum-70s.
rating
by the old Winchester mea-
psuerreLuatearstrh,
the present laws do. And not. only
had it no tendency to prevent the market from
being deluged at any given period, but it went to
encourage its accumulation in bond even more
than the present system does. Three is, indeed,
one great check to excess of importation just
now, which Mr. Canning's Bill, or, perhaps, it
would be more just.to say, Mr. Huskisson's Bill,
for Mr. Canning evidently had studied time subject
very little, went directly to'remove. He who irm-