The Sun. — 1834-08-11 (London, England)

LONDON, MONDAY EVENING, AUGUST 11, 1834.  There have been many ominous predictions, and a vast deal of unmeaning noise made about the Lords throwing out the Irish Tithe Bill. We have always thought that it grants a boon to the Landlords to which they have no right, but things have been brought to such a pass in that country by the mismanagement and obstinacy of the High Church party, that right and justice are overpowered by dire necessity. The full amount of tithes could not now be collected but at a sacrifice a thousand times more to be dreaded than the loss of 300,0001. a-year—  a civil war. WELLINGTON gave up a great principle which, on yielding, he still declared to be just, and which he regarded as one of the bulwarks of the Protestant Church, in order to prevent his fellow-citizens from imbruing their hands in each other's blood ; and would he and his party now incur such an awful responsibility merely for the sake, if it were possible, of saving that sum ? It would cost the country ten times the amount even to make the experiment, and then they would be as far —nay farther—from their object than ever. But the idea is absurd—he has already declared, that Tithes can no longer be collected in Ireland, and if some settlement is not speedily made, the Protestant Church in that country must be destroyed. On what ground, then, of consistency or expediency, could we combine with others to defeat such a settlement ? As for a change of Ministry, or the event of the Lords and the Commons disagreeing on this point, that.is still more out of the question. If Ministers were always to resign their places on account of such a difference, we should have a Tory and Whig Administration alternately every three months. Had the question been brought forward at an earlier stage of the Session, probably the Legislature might have made a better bargain with the landholders. It is now decided.  It is singular enough that within these few days two public trials should have taken place which exemplify all the objections urged by the LORD CHANCELLOR against throwing open Coroners' Courts. In the case of TREVANION v. DANBUZ, public decency was grossly outraged, and the name of a third party, an innocent Barrister, bro-ught forward, who had nothing more to do with this crim. con. affair than he had with the rape of HELEN ; and at the trial at Chester of two of the murderers of Mr. ASHTON, evidence against others of the accomplices was given, which would tell them to lose no time in making their escape. In these instances the public might be satisfied with the verdicts, had the trials been carried on with closed doors, but would they be satisfied with the decision of a secret tribunal on an affair like that which has been called the " Manchester Massacre ?" In  all cases of this kind, whether coming before Coroners' Courts, or Criminal and Civil Courts, it ought to be safely left to the Jury to decide when the public should be excluded. To leave the law as at present,  gives a power to one individual which the House of Commons will not long sanction.  The addresses of the Proceres, or Chamber of  Peers, and Procuradores, or Chamber of Deputies,  answer to the Regent of