The Sun.
London, England, 1827-04-05 00:00:00

ventive. portion, he had shewn himself in the diseri-
-mination of individual character.; ;There are-prig-
bably few men in England so ignorant as not tia
know that one of the Constitutionalifunctions of 4
Peer of the realm in this country; is that of an he:
reditary adviser of the Crown; and that any.-Peer
has a right to request an audience of the Sovereign,
whenever he sees in the state of public affairs any
• sufficient motive for his interference. This is a right
and a duty, it is true, which is seldom called into
exercise, because in the ordinary course of affairs the
King is surrounded by his ministerial advisers, who
must necessarily possess the confidence of the col-
lective Peerage, as one branch of the Legislature.
The formation of an Administration seems, for this
reason, to be the only exertion of the Royal Pre-
rogative in which any advantage can be derived to
the Sovereign or the country from the assistance
of the hereditary Counsellors of the Crown, and to
impugn the conduct of any Peer who may tender his
advice on such an emergency, is therefore equivalent
to a denial of the existence of the value of this con-
stitutional provision. Sir Thomas Lethbridge, as we
stated yesterday, has given notice of a motion in the
House of Commons, the tendency of which is to im-
pose upon his Majesty a task which may prove ra-
ther a difficult one, that of forming an Administra-
tion, the members of which shall be unanimous upon every
political question of any national importance; and our con-
temporary appear to think, that the course pursued by this
worthy Member of the Lower House may be advantageously
contrasted with that of a Peer offering his individual coun-
sel upon the same subject. The distinctions between the
two eases appear to us, on the contrary, to be altogether
in favour of the latter. The interference of the House of
Commons is destructive to the free agency of the Sovereign,
from the very weight of authority which goes along-with
it ; while that of the individual Peer extends no fin•ther
than to the giving of advice, which the Sovereign may ac-
cept or adopt at his pleasure. This, in a matter which the
Constitution has exclusively delegated to the Crown is an
important distinction in favour of the latter case. But the
practical effects generally to be expected from these two dif,,
ferent kinds of interference, present another distinction
highly favourable to that of the Peer. The House of Com-
mons can hardly interfere in any crisis of this nature
without creating difficulties, and narrowing the range of
choice : it is obvious, on the other hand, that the indivi-
dual Peer may occasionally have it in his power to extend
the range of choice, and to obviate difficulties already ex-
isting. As to the immediate tendency of the conduct falsely
imputed to the Duke of Rutland, and that really pursued by
the Hon. Baronet in the House of Commons, we think the
distinction attempted is yet if possible mere futile. There
can be no doubt in the mind of any reasonable man, that
the success of Sir T. Lethbridge's motion would as effec-
tually exclude from the Cabinet all its present Members
who are favourable to the Catholic Claims, as that the pre-
valence of the counsels imputed to the Duke of Rutland
would exclude one individual of their number from the
office of Prime Minister.—Morning Post.

The strike of the weavers of Spitalfields is
nearly at an end. The great majority of the mas-
ters have complied with the demands of the
workmen, and agreed to pay the book-prices ;
and the few houses that still hold out, differ
from their brother manufacturers only in respect
of certain articles. It is, we learn, the inten-
tion of the workmen, with a view to putting an
end, in future, to similar disputes, to apply to
Parliament, for what they term a ,4 Labour Pro-
tection Act." They wish, that whatever rate of
wages may be agreed on by a majority of two
Committees, one appointed by the masters, and
the other by the workmen, the same shall be
binding on the whole of the trade, whether ma-
nufacturers or weavers. The latter suppose, of
course, that by such an arrangement, greater stea-
diness of prices will be insured, and that masters
will be kept from attempts to lower the wages of
their workmen, and workmen from aiding them
in any such attempts, by competition for em-
ployment. It is almost unnecessary, to argue. upon
a plan, which, in the present state of public opi-
nion, has not the most remote chance of ever being
i
carried into a law; but, even granting the possi-
bility of gaining their object, we cannot see what

—labour Was diminishing, such a plan- might, for si
week or two, retard the fall of wages, (though even
that is not a necessary consequence of art Act, whose
provisions it would be so easy to evade.) But do
not the workmen see, that, when the demand for
labour was on the increase, the retardation of ad-
. vance would be exactly proportionate; and that
their notable plan is neither more nor less than a
cumbrous apparatus robbing one pocket to replenish
'the other ?—New Times.