The Sun. — London, England, 1836-08-04 00:00:00

SPIRIT OF THE PUBLIC JOURNALS. The annoyance manifested by Sir Robert Peel at the Home Secretary's waiver of the point of privilege on Tuesday night, in order to arrive at the discussion of the mutilated Church of Ireland Bill upon its merits, has extended itself to the Right Hon. Baronet's literary retainers. in all the leading Tory journals Lord :John Russell is assailed, ostensibly for mooting the question of privilege, but really for not pressing it to a division, and thus saving his opponents from the mortification of another defeat upon the great princi ple at issue between the Peers and the people—be tween the faction longing for place, and the Reformers, labouring, without prospect or expectation of personal advantage, for the general welfare. Some of these lynx-eyed worthies even pretend to see in the Noble Lord's waiver of this point of privilege the proof of their own sagacity in attributing to Ministers an in tention to " blink by an unsavoury side-wind"—[the originality of this conceit may, peradventure, excuse its absurdity]—the question of merits. Did not the Noble Lord raise the point of form, exclaim our sadly shrewd contemporaries—and is not this a proof irrefra gable, that he intended, at some period or ano ther, to " shirk the great question upon which the heart of the nation is set ?" Such is, literally, the " device" by which the ingenious journalists in the Tory interest endeavour to hoodwink the public, and screen their own scandalous and corrupt misrepresen tations for the last week from the country's gaze and reprobation. To reason with persons so demented by defeat, and so stultified by passion, would be an un profitable task. Still some of their arguments—if so we may call their attempts at ratiocination—may as well be stated and answered ; not that the authors will recant an error or admit a correction ; for, like the man " convinced against his will," they will be of " the same opinion still ;" no matter how clearly that opinion may be demon strated to be erroneous : but that the portion of the public who, upon trust, are in the habit of taking their notions from the lucubrations of these writers, may be disabused and set right upon a great question, which has been so overlaid with falsehood and misrepresen tation by the Tories in general, both in Parliament and out of it, that its real bearing and purpose are nearly lost sight of. It has been asserted that the Bill for the adjustment of the long and fiercely-agitated ques tion of tithes, as re-meddled by the Peers, is a measure of unmixed , good ; that its excellence, so far as it goes, is universally admitted ; and that, con sequently, being a healing measure, it ought to be cheerfully accepted by the Reformers, even though it goes not to the full extent of their wishes. If this were a correct description of the mutilated Bill, the Reformers ought, undoubtedly, to consider the alte rations at least in no unfriendly light. But the de scription is altogether false, and the argument of the Tories is built upon a groundless and an unwarran table series of assumptions. The mutilated Bill is not one of unmixed good, and the Reformers have not admitted it to be good in any respect. By the " amend ments" of the Upper House the bonus to the landlords is curtailed ; an act of injustice towards that class to whom, with all their heavy weight of malversation upon their heads, justice is yet due. The 30 per cent. re mitted in the original Bill was what these were fairly entitled to for risking their re , nt-roll by the dange rous association of tithes. This fact was clearly estabished by the Marquis of Lansdowne, in his speech upon Lord Lyndhurst's amendment to the third clause. The amended Bill also increased the income of the clergy to such an extent as to raise the Irish parsons, in a Catholic country, above their brethren in Protestant England in the scale of wealth. This was a palpable abuse, a glaring injustice. By the same amended measure it was provided—though not in ex press terms—that no matter how the number of Pro testants in Ireland might vary, there should never be a surplus of ecclesiastical revenue ; and, more intole rable still, that the Catholics of Tipperary, and Cork, wad Galway, and Mayo, should pay for the extrava gant maintenance of the Protestant clergymen in Dub tin. in 13eIlast, and in Londonderry. The mutilated MI further interdicted the re-valuation of tithe pro perty, rxcept in a few instances, though it is notorious that the old compositions, under Mr. Goulburn's Act, were entered into in a manner, and under cir cumstances, which made these .compositions the very reverse of a proper standard by which to esti mate the amount of rent-charge under the proposed enactmcrnt. The parishioners and the parsons were, besides, the compounding parties under Mr. Goullnun's Act ; the rent-elrarge was proposed to fall upon the landlords, who were not interested in the old compositions, and whom yet, against all fairness, the Lords would bind down by the acts of others. Such were the leading provisions of the Tory amended Bill, and this Bill is dcsetibed as one of " unmixed good !" It is, doubtless, " good" in Tory eyes—in the estima tion of a party - who imagine that the Church establish men! cannel be too large or too wealthy, nonuatter how disgustingly disproportionate to the Protestant population, and who have arrived at this conclusion for the very natural reason that they are themselves the chief gainers by sinecures, pluralities, enormous titheS, and extensive glebes ; but a far different opinion is formed of the altered measure by those who have the pressure of the " Anomalous Church" (we quote Lord Mahon's words), and by those Eirdishmen and Scotchmen who prefer the peace of Ireland and the general weal to the personal interests of a selfish faction, who care not a jot for the Church, but love its revenues, and who sully and endanger Protestantism by making the Reformed Faith a mask for cupidity and an engine of oppression. `We have more than once asserted—and the assertion remains unrefuted—that the Bill, even as it left the House of Commons, was not a good mea sure in all its parts ; and that without the appropria tion clauses it would have been scouted with scorn by the great body of the nation. These clauses alone in fused into it a healing property—by these alone could it possibly produce the desired effects—the pacification of Ireland and the security of the Church Establish. ment. But, say the Tories, would the concession of these clauses by the House of Lords make the pro posed settlement final ? How preposterous to talk of finality in connection with human affairs I This is fixing a limit to thin gs in their nature illimitable—and investing things temporal and evanescent with a Divine attribute, by declaring that they shall be immutable. We cannot say—who dares to say ?—that any settle ment of any political question will be " final." That would be limiting the power s of Parliament and the rights of the people—it would be doine , what the present generation have n o aut h or i ty to do, viz., destroying the rights of posterity. But though we cannot aver that .the settlement of the tithe ques tion in Ireland proposed by his imai„`ty,s Mi nisters, approved by the representative s of the United Kingdom, and acquiesced in by the people whose acquiescence is in this case of para mount value and importance,—though, we repeat, it is impos sible for us to say that this settlement would be " final," we assert, unhesitatingly and at once, that the settlement proposed by the Tory Peers did not in the smallest degree partake of the nature of a final arrange ment. The application of the simple term " settle ment" to the lordly plan, is an absurd abuse of words. To coupl e t h e term " final" with such a "settlement," is an outrage upon common sense. The lordly ar rangement lacks the essence of settlement, for it wants the consent of the people of ll•eland, without which no settlement of the tithe question can be temporary — far less final. Of this truth the Tory Peers were well aware ; this conviction was deeply impressed upon their minds when they extracted the appropriation clauses, and by that means made the whole Bill a nauseous mass. They, therefore, deliberately, and with malice prepense, entailed upon Ireland another year of bitter resentment, and acrimonious, turbulent agitation. Their newspapers have predicted the shed ding of blood from the non-adjustment of this ques tion. Should the prophecy be verified—which Heaven forfend—on the heads of those whose perverse and factious policy shall have caused the calamity, be the guilt and the consequences I Ministers and their sup. porters stand already acquitted.—Morning Chronicle. Mr. D. W. Harvey's speech on Tuesday night sur prised no one. It was in precise accordance with the anticipations of his auditory. Each side of the House expected an attack from the " paragon,' and neither I was disappointed. The Honourable Member dealt about his blows indiscriminately, caring not whom he hurt, provided he satisfied himself that he alone of the 658 truly represented the wishes and the interests of the empire. We must, however, in fairness state, that though his vote swelled the majority, the major part of his harangue tended—could his sayings produce any effect in the House—to increase the minority. In fact, he voted with the Reformers, and spoke for the Tories ; so that Mr. Alexander Baring's spirit still animates one Member of the House of Commons, though the body corporate of that gentleman graces the Opposition benches in the House of Lords. We have, however, alluded to Mr. D. W. Harvey's ex hibition, not for the purpose of criticising his ora tion, but in order to call attention to a trait of peculiar candour which it evinced. The Ho; nourable Member, in the outpouring of his honest indignation at the manner in which the Church million was disbursed, assailed the Duke of Devonshire, and the Earl of Essex, for having touched a fund granted, as he was pleased to say, for the sole benefit of the starving parsons. Mr. Caven dish, it is true, confuted this assertion ; but let that pass. But why did Mr. D. W. Harvey harp exclu sively upon the two Whig Noblemen who touched, between them, of the million but 3,5271., while he omitted all allusion to the Marquis of Downshire, the Marquis of Ormonde, the Earl of Donoughmore, the Marquis of Westmeath, Lord de Vesci, Viscount Ferrard, Baron Foster (the Viscount's relative), the Lord Bishops of Ferns and Kildare, Sir Francis Holy oake Goodricke, the Earl of Norbury, and last and least, Mr. Eneas M'Donnell—all Tories, all bitter enemies of reform, and all shining out in the return made upon Mr. D. W. Harvey's own motion ? Some of these names interpose in the column between the names of the two Whig Peers upon whom the virtuous bile of the candid Member for Southwark was so copiously vented, and they " grabbed, " to borrow Mr. Daniel Whittle Harvey's peculiar phraseology, much more than the Whig Lords, one of whom "fingered" (we still draw upon the Hon. Member's idiom) but 821., while the Tory Marquis of Downshire "grabbed" 2,6971. How, we repeat, did this remarkable omission occur ? It could not surely have been the effect of a design to annoy Whigs and to treat Tories with delicate courtesy ? Still the fact is curious. But there no room for impeachment of motive ; for Mr. D. W. Harvey is an Hon. Member and a candid man, averse to injure any but himself, it being notorious that to his zeal for the interests of the country he has made many and great sacrifices. We may observe, by the bye, that Mr. Sheil did all that lie could, and more than could have been expected of him, for the cause of his country. Though the Hon. and Learned Gen tleman had paired off, and consequently was not at liberty to vote, he quitted Ireland determined to aid the cause by 'his presence and his eloquence.—Morn ing Chronicle. Though concurring in the preliminary remark made by almost every member who addressed the House in the debate of Tuesday night—namely, that the sub ject of the Irish Church Bill was, in all its parts, com pletely exhausted by previous discussion—yet we sin cerely rejoice that the matter was again brought for ward before the close of the present session. As a trial of numerical strength, it was highly gratifying to the Conservative party—as a trial of intellectual strength, still more so. Leaving Lord Morpeth, who gave a feast of exultation for the " glorious 86," to furnish forth a banquet of consolation for the miserable " 29," we shall proceed to consider the most striking features of the discussion of Tuesday night. The leaders of the two adverse parties spoke first in the debate. And what a contrast I The Noble Lord at the head of the Treasury bench feeble, irresolute, and glaringly unequal to the emergency ; the Right Hon. Baronet at the head of the Opposition bold, decisive, and gaining energy from the very difficulties of his position. Lord John Russell told the House that he should, were he to confine himself to strict matter of. privilege, deem the bill one which did not admit of alteration by the Lords. " But," simpered the Noble Lord, " I pass by the matter of privilege, in order to arrive at the merits of the question." Sir Robert Peel was determined not to let the Whig- Radical Leader off so easily. The Right Hon. Ba ronet pinned his opponent to the point. He insisted that the. privileges of the House of Commons had either been infringed, or that they had not. If they had, it was the duty of the House to vindicate those privileges ; if they had not, then any allusion of the kind could only have been resorted to for the purpose of entrapping inexperienced. Members, by mixing up some indefinite notion of violated privilege with the subject matter on which they were called on to de cide. Sir Robert Peel claimed the judgment of the Chair as to whether the privileges of the House had been violated or not. Lord John Russell rose, and faltered forth an " explanation," as it is called by courtesy, but it would not do. Sir Robert Peel, with merciless perseverance, pressed for the decision of the Chair ; and, knowing as we do the power of the Right Hon. Gentleman who fills that high station, we shall content ourselves with saying, that to our capa cities, at least, he was unintelligible, and that it ap peared to us that Sir Robert Peel came to the as sistance of the,Right Hon. Gentleman when, amidst the cheers of the 'louse, he said that he might " assume that the discussion was now disembarrassed of the qnestion of privilege:" Never was there a more flimsy contrivance than that of the Home Secre tary, when thus affecting to relinquish a point from pure generosity and a disinclination to provoke angry discussion ; nor was there ever a flimsy pretext more utterly frustrated than was this by the vigorous grap pling, of Sir Robert Peel. If Lord John Russell failed thus signally in his manoeuvre, he was not more successful in his argumentation on the merits of the question. Indeed, though we read his 'speech with great attention, it did not appear to us that the real merits of the question were touched upon till Sir Ro bert Peel addressed the House. Whether from his association with the orators of the other side of the Channel, or from whatever cause, the Noble Lord seems of late to have imbibed the true spirit of Irish eloquence. He favoured the House with a succession of sounding words of but small significance, and he appealed chiefly to the fears of the assembly, when asking them to consider what effect the adoption of the Lords' amendments would have on the state and pros pects of agitation in the sister kinadom? He gave it as his opinion that agitation would go on increasing till it was impossible to resist it ; and that, as Mr. Shiel at a later stage of the debate more manfully de clared, the - Catholic millions would force the conces sion of what they (justly or not) believed to be their rights. The Noble Lord instanced the cases of America and of the Catholic question. We pass by the former, because the latter is more immediately to the point, as having direct reference to the Irish people, and as being within the recollection of our readers. Can anything be more puerile or preposterous than to attempt an analogy between the concession of the Roman Catholic claims in 1829, and the concession of a Church spolia tion now demanded in 1836 ? In 1829 millions of Irish subjects, identified in religious belief with a large number of the people of Great Britain, demanded participation in the rights and privileges of British citizenship, from which their religion, and their reli gion only, excluded them. The nobles of their per suasion, the prelates of their Church—the entire body, lay and clerical, gave the most solemn assurances upon this very point in particular, that they had no intention, no desire, of interfering directly or indirectly, with the temporalities of the Protestant Church. We were told that, secure in the affection of a devoted popula tion, the Irish clergy especially were resolved to con tinue in the service of that Master whose kingdom is not of this world. Moved less we believe by these profuse asseverations than by t h eir native generosity and love of justice, the English peopl e grante d f u ll an d free participation in the blessings of the Constitution to the members of that persuasion which it had cost this nation so many painful struggles to shake off. The Roman Catholics then asked for civil and religious li berty, and it was granted to them ; and though the virulent leaders of their party may now find it conve nient to forget the fact, we take leave to say that by none was that enlightened measure more warmly ap proved than by ourselves, and, we will add, that by none had it been more strenuously, or, as the Roman Catholics at that time were pleased to say, more power- fully advocated. Such was the concession then claimed ' and granted. What is it that is now claimed, and which the English people justly refuse to grant ? Why, as Sir James Graham forcibly said at the close of his speech, we are called upon to " transfer from the ministers of the Established Church and the Pro testant religion the lands which they now possess, and to give them to the ministers of that .religion which our forefathers risked a revolution to overthrow, and which in the field and on the scaffold they gloried in renouncing." In short, we are, in the words of the Right Hon. Baronet, called upon to concede not only Protestant spoliation but Catholic endowment. And will Lord John Russell pretend to say—will a far su perior man, the Member for Tipperary, be so infa tuated as to urge, that there is any analogy between giving the Roman Catholics the enjoyment of religious liberty, and consigning the Protestants of Ireland to Popish domination? Admitting, as all must admit, the absurdity of any such comparison, the passage quoted by Lord John Russell from a speech of Lord Brougham is wholly beside the question. Not so; however, a passage quoted by Sir Robert Peel from Lord Melbourne. Lord John Russell, among other proofs of bewilderment, gave utterance to an opinion that the Bill in question was one which would be nefit the Church—an opinion in which the Roman Catholic Members warmly coincided. Sir Robert Peel showed, by a quotation from a speech of Lord Melbourne's, which we noticed yesterday, that this measure, so considered by the Home Secretary, was by the Prime Minister characterized as one which must deal a heavy blow on Protestantism in Ireland, and occasion shocks and convulsions dangerous not only to the Established Church, but to the Constitution itself. ' This is not the first time that we have had oc casion to remark that sort of discrepancy in the Minis terial speakers in the two Houses of Parliament, which might render it doubtful whether they ever held a Ca binet Council together. Sir Robert Peel went care fully through the details of the proposed measure, and demonstrated with the utmost fairness, that whatever might be the opinion of Ministers and their supporters on the ,subject of appropriation, there was still enough of universally admitted good in the Bill, as returned from the Lords, to call for its adoption, leaving the appropriation question open for after consideration. He therefore called upon the House to pass the Bill as amended, and not to relinquish the practical good which it was calculated to effect, for the shadow of a surplus which they might never be able to realize. This point was also ably urged by Sir James Graham and Lord Stanley, but it was urged in vain, the Go vernment being determined to do good in their own way—that is, with an accompaniment of evil, or not at all. Mr. Hume had the amazing effrontery to state that the Conservatives made of this a party question ! As Mr. Shaw incontrovertibly stated, the measure had been originated and sustained by nothing but the party-spirit of the Whig-Radical side of the House— indeed, it formed the very cement of that incongruous junction ; for while the Home Secretary and others talked of it as a final adjustment, Mr. Hume and the other Radicals designated it only as a first instalment. Yet both parties, so opposite, were held together by this unworthy bond for party purposes, and for none other. It was this very question which brought the Ministry into power, they being pledged to its settlement ; and now, finding them selves unable to carry it, they not only refuse to relinquish their power, but they deny to the Irish people any amelioration of the tithe question till, by carrying their appropriation clause, they give Messrs. Hume, O'Connell, and others that insertion of the point of the wedge by which they hope ultimately to break up and destroy the Establishment in Ireland. They will never be able to carry this appropriation clause, and they know it ; yet, for purposes purely factious, they refuse to pass a beneficial measure, in the desperate hope that some chances of the political game may turn up favourable to the only consideration by which they are actuated—their retention of the power and emoluments of place. Now, we ask, are the affairs of this nation to be thus administered from year to year? Is the time of the House of Commons, so valuable to the country, to be wasted year after year by the introduction of measures at an early period of the session, which the Ministers well know can never be carried through, and which we sincerely believe would never be introduced at all but for the purpose of killing time, and diverting the popular attention from the inconsistency, tergiversation, and imbecility of an incapable and rapacious faction ? The Ministers, warned by those successive indications to which Sir R. Peel so forcibly alluded, are not likely to afford an opportunity of answering this question by the elective voice of the empire. But we feel confident that every vacancy, however occasioned, will be so filled up as to force even upon the reluctant minds of the Whig- Radicals the conviction, " that but little time remains for them to have even the sorry grace of quitting their position before the preparations are complete for their unceremonious expulsion."—Times. The decision of the House of Commons against the settlement of the Irish tithe question is not more in consistent with the desire so often expressed by the majority of that house, that the question should be settled, than were the argurnents'used by Lord John Russell, with the conclusion which he desired to be drawn from them. He must have greatly relied upon the blind prejudices of the people he addressed, when he deemed it safe to make use of such arguments. The description which even Lord John Russell gave of the amendments which the Lords had made in the Bill was enough to strike any reasonable man, having a correct understanding of the nature of Church pro perty, with the justice and wisdom which the amend ments displayed. After a great many words about " privilege," which led to nothing but the consump tion of so much time and breath as were expended in uttering these words, Lord John came to the amend ment by which the Lords had increased the minimum parochial revenue to 3001. a-year, and had provided that where the revenues exceeded that sum in pa rishes of which the Protestant inhabitants were very few, the surplus should be transferred to parishes where the Protestant inhabitants are very nume rous. His Lordship fairly described these amend ments, and, in doing so, could not help making apparent to all but the grossly prejudiced, the justice and good sense which such a proposition bears with it irresistibly in the contemplation of every candid mind. Let us look for a moment soberly and calmly at the facts of the case, such as we suppose they will be admitted to be by all, but those who are devoted to the utmost ex tremes of irreligion and revolution. It is the duty of all Christian Governments to provide for the religious instruction of the people ; and though it is inconsistent with the principles of toleration which belong to Pro testantism to force particular doctrines and discipline on any men, yet our Government, being essentially and peculiarly Protestant in its Constitution, cannot in rea son or consistency provide any other national religious instruction than that of Protestantism. We have a Protestant religious Establishment already endowed with property which has belonged to the national Church from time immemorial. It wants nothing from the Government but protection in its legal rights ; nor from the Legislature, except assistance to make such new distribution of property as the changes of circum stances in particular localities may render expedient. It is found that in certain parishes of Ireland the re venues of the Church are considerable, and the num ber of Protestants very small ; that in certain other parishes the revenues are small, and the number of Protestants large ;—does it then require any argument to show the justice of supplying the wants of one loca lity from the superabundance of the other ? " Oh, but," says Lord J. Russell, " It is unjust to make the farmers and the impoverished peasantry' of the Roman Catholic parishes in the south, pay for the religious instruction of the Protestants of the north." So it would be, we grant ; but the Bill which the House of Commons has rejected did not propose to do any thing of the kind. On the contrary, it proposed to relieve the farmers and the impoverished peasantry from the payment of tithes altogether, as Lord J. Rus sell right well knew, and to fix the payment upon the landowners, who are for the most part Protestants. Be sides, even Radicals admit that the property of the Church is a distinct property in the land, as valid as that of the landowner. It ought to be taken out of the produce of the land, even according to their doctrine, and the only question is as to its application. But since it is, as the majority of the House of Lords, and, we believe, of the people of England hold, the inalienable property of the National Church, what can be so rea sonable as that it should be transferred from one place, where much is not required from the Church, to another, where a great deal is required ? But another com plaint is, that the Bill actually left 300/. a year for the support of the Established Church, in parishes where there are scarcely any Protestants. Now if it be true that the Government and the law ought to uphold a National Church, particularly when that Church asks no money out of the taxes, it is not to be done without a place of worship and a clergyman ; and nothing but base and-dishonest parsimony would fix the revenue of a clergyman, educated, as happily the Clergy of our Church must be, at less than 3001. a year. It is nothing to the purpose to say that this is too much for attending to the spiritual welfare of, perhaps, but three Protestants. The clergyman will equally require support, whether he instructs three or three hundred. We must pay, and we do pay, as much for a mail coach that carries only 50 letters, as one that carries 5,000. The payment is not for the service performed, but for providing the means for performing the service. And in the case of the mail coach, the payment comes out of the public purse ; but the Church pays out of its own purse. The real questions are, . first, whether a Protestant Government can be justified in knocking down parochial establishments of the Protestant religion, which cost nothing to the national purse ? and, secondly, if it cannot be justified in doing so, whether it has reason, justice, or honesty on its side, in compelling the Church to take from a parochial clergyman so much of his income as to reduce it below a decent moderate mainte nance—that is, 300/. a-year. It is indeed truly af firmed that many English clergymen have less than this ; but what does that prove ? Many Irish pea sants have less food than English peasants—is that an argument for reducing the scale of living in England ? Certainly not, but it is an argument for endeavouring to raise it in Ireland. In like manner, the revenues of the Clergy in England, if different from the modest 3001. a-year in Ireland, the enormity of which startles Lord John Russell, with his thousands taken out of the public purse, it should be raised. The equality ought not to be produced by allowing a Popish faction to despoil the endowments of parishes for instruction in the national religion, so as to reduce them below 3001. a-year As to the ". appropriation clause," Lord John Russell had nothing to say for it, beyond an am plification of the assertion, that it was an essential principle of the Bill for chanaine. Irish Tithes into a rent-charge, to be paid by the Protestant Landlords, and thus settling the disputes between the Protestant clergy, and the Roman Catholic farmers and peasantry. Such an assertion seems to be, on the face of it, sheer nonsense, and we can make nothing else of it, though it was received as sense by a majority of the House of Commons.—Morning Herald. The Whigs and self-styled Liberals have always been the most inveterate enemies of the Press, and have rarely neglected to avail themselves of any pre text or opportunity to harrass, endanger, and oppress those by whom it is conducted. Of this disposition a more striking example was never presented than that which the present Ministers have just given to the world in tacking to the Stamp Duties Reduction Bill a clause, requiring that every person possessing a proprietary interest in a newspaper shall be registered at the Stamp Office, thus exposing all who devote any portion of their capital to the establishment or maintenance of a journal to vexations aod annoyances which are entirely unknown in all whet: departments of industry or enterprize, and holding them out to pub lic view as a suspected, if not a proscribed class. This arbitrary . enactment was suggested, as our readers know, by that liberal and sagacious Gen tleman, Mr. C. Buller—was eagerly adopted by Ministers—and as eagerly ratified by the present en lightened and popular House of Commons. It is truly fortunate for the liberty of the Press, however, as it is for every other element and feature of national freedom, that we have a House of Lords which does not regard as a matter of absolute law or imperious duty, that it should invariably or implicitly acquiesce in the decisions of the Lower House of Parliament. We have much satisfaction in stating that many Peers (among whom we must mention with gratitude and applause his Royal Highness the Duke of Cumber land) are now staying in town chiefly for the purpose of opposing a determined resistance to the gaggino. clause (for such it really is) of the Ministerial It is still more gratifying to add, that this generous, noble, and patriotic opposition to Ministerial tyranny is likely to prove completely successful.—Morn. Post. It is not becoming in the victor to trample upon the vanquished, nor is it always wise in this who antici pate a triumph to holloo before they are out of the wood. These two sage maxims are of old standing., and it would have been well if our blustering and brag ging Tory cotemporaries had taken the latter proverb to heart, and acted upon it, ere they predicted, as they simultaneously did, that the Ministry would be left in a minority upon the Irish Tithe Bill—that " the game was up"—and that they would be obliged to resign. How these predictions have been falsified our readers are already aware. They have had the division which they so clamorously called for—and they have it upon the merits of the question, and not upon the question of privilege—and what have they gained by it ? A defeat —a glaring and shameful defeat—in a House consisting of only 491 Members ! Had all the Members of the House been present, as • we stated yesterday, the majo rity would have been much greater; for, independent of Sir C. Cockerel], who was unfortunately shut out, and who, if present, would have made the majority 30, instead of 29, there were no fewer than eleven Mem hers in the Reform interest absent without pairing, (Lord Surrey, General Evans, Mr. Ellice, Messrs. Hatnsden, Ord, Wason, Barham, Beaumont, and Chet wynd, and Colonel Edwards, and Colonel Knox), making the total majority 41, instead of 29 ! Yet the Tory press would have the public to believe that the House of Commons was inclined to truckle to the Lords—to adopt its shameful interpolations and omis sions in the Bill in question—and that the country was ripe for the return of a Conservative Government ! " But the gaMe is up. They may go on holding their Cabinet Councils, and guzzling, with what appetite they may, their Cabinet dinners ; they are as surely doomed as wassailers in some city of the pest with the plague spot rising in their front. We announced the malignant taint in their society when all looked fresh an fair ; and now it has spread and cankered is universally recognized and uni versally shunned. And we, who have fought the battle of the English people, under all circumstances and at all seasons, were accused by short-sighted poltroons and eager mouthed traitors of deserting the great cause of civil and religious liberty, because we opposed these men—because we looked askew at the toleration of a monk's cowl and the freedom of a jacobin's cap—because, overtopping the mists and heats of party, We saw, as from a tower, the end of all ;' and, foreseeing the ignoble tyranny impending over this ancient and illustrious land, we summoned the English na tion to their old allegiance, gauged the d e pth o f th e na ti ona l heart, and struck th key-note of the national sympathy, and called the people back to old English feelings, for the sake of preserving old English freedom." Heaven bless the mark ! The thunderer has missed fire for once, and the " taker of cities" has been re duced to eat his own humble pie in his own dwelling of bloated blackguardism, insensate fury, and false prediction. But let us be as merciful as we mean to be just. The victory is ours, and we rejoice that the good cause has again triumphed ; but we shall not taunt our adversaries upon the ignominious defeat which they have received. Sufficient is it for us to say, that in a House of Commons elected under Tory influence, the Ministers who drove Sir Robert Peel from office had the support of a majority of it ; and that until our adversaries can double that majority, they must, Willy or Hilly, even be content to leave the loaves and fishes of office in the hands of abler, better, and more principled men.—Morning Advertiser. SHEFFIELD AND MIDLAND RAILWAY.--In the late advertisements in our Paper, the deposit was by mis take stated to be 5/. instead of 2/. 103. Miss Dalbiac, only daughter of Major-General Sir C. Dalbiac, M. P., who it is rumoured will bestow her hand on the young Duke of Roxburgh, as soon, if not before, his Grace obtains his majority, is in her twentieth year. The Duke is at present travelling in Belgium and Germany, with his mother the Duchess, and his step-father, Colonel O'Reilly. The Dukedom of Roxburgh, Marquisate of Beaumont and Cessford, Earldom of Kelso, &c., being Scotch honours, his Grace will not be entitled, on coming of age next year, to a seat in the House of Peers. IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT. HOUSE OF LORDS, Auousr 3. In the absence of the Lord Chancellor, the Earl of SHAFTESBURY presided on the Woolsack. Mr. BERNAL and other Members of the Commons brought up a printed copy of the report of a Select Com mittee of that House, inquiring into the municipal election of the borough of Poole, together with the minutes of evidence. Laid upon the table. _ _ Mr. BERNAL and others brought up the Stannaries Court (Cornwall) Bill, the General Enclosure of England and Wales Bill, the Turnpike Continuance Acts Bill—all of which were read a first time. On the motion of Viscount DUNCANNON, the House went into Committee on the Grand Juries (Ireland) Bill. After a short conversation, in which the Marquis of Westmeath, Lord Carbery, Viscount Duncannon, and Lord Fitzgerald took part, some amendments were made ; and the House having resumed, the report was ordered to be presented on Friday. Viscount MELBOURNE presented a petition from the Andersonian medical students of Glasgow, complaining of certain restrictions in the Glasgow University, and praying redress. The report on the Exchequer Suits in Equity Bill was laid upon the table. On the motion of the Marquis of WESTMEATH, the Civil Bill Courts (Ireland) Bill was read a third time and passed. Adjourned. HOUSE OF 'COMMONS, AUGUST 3. The SPEAKER took the chair at three o'clock. THE TROUTBECK CASE. Mr. W ARBURTON moved that the House at its rising do adjourn' to twelve o'clock to-morrow, to resume the adjourned debate on the Troutbeck Case, on the ques tion for the appointment of a Select Committee thereon. Agreed to. Mr. E. J. STANLEY brought up the report on the Sunk Island Road Bill. RESOLUTIONS ON RAILROADS. Mr. P. THOMSON rose, as Chairman of the Com- mittec appointed by the House, to propose the adoption by the House of the resolutions to which the Committee had come. Perhaps it would be more convenient, as they would have to go through the resolutions seriatim, if any objections were made to them, to offer, with the assistance of the other Members of the Committee, any explanations that should be necessary, and not to take up the time of the House in pointing out the alterations that had been made. He would merely state that the Committee over which he had had the honour to preside, had giVen . their best attention to the consideration of the subject ; first, with regard to any amendments that it was desirable to introduce into the Standing Orders on Railroads, which were spe cially referred to them, and afterwards in consequence of suggestions made to them, into the Standing Orders gene rally. The first amendments that would be put referred to the Standing Orders generally. In the course of their investigation into the subject, the reference of a petition for a Bill to a Committee naturally came before them, and it did appear that the present practice was one which the Committee could not recommend. It appeared that in the examination of a petition upon a Bill, there was in reality very little serious investigation, the par ties being heard simply on one side ; and, in fact, the matter in cases of doubt being sent to be decided by the Standing Orders' Committee. They, therefore, suggested the propriety of altering that tribunal. They proposed that th e p e titi on on each Bill should be referred to a Committee of another description. They proposed for this purpose to constitute, at the beginning of the Session, a Committee, consisting of 42 members, to be divided into six Sub-Committees, hav ing power to act each as a separate Committee, under such regulations as should be approved of by the Committee annually when first instituted. The facts of the case would be investigated by that Committee, or by each of the Sub Committees, and he entertained little doubt that by this plan the business would be speedily got through, while, at the same time, infinitely more care and attention would be paid to it.—( Hear, hear, hear.) He then pro posed that the Committee should take cognizance of the facts, and that upon the facts as reported to the House, the Standing Order Committee, which they proposed to di minish in number to fifteen; and which would of course consist of members that would not serve on the other Com mittees, give their decision, which would be an equitable decision as to the Bill going on or not. There would be a tribunal before which the facts would be proved—there would be a tribunal which would decide on these facts, and administer an equitable jurisdiction with reference to the facts thus proved. These were the principal alterations—there were other alterations, which would be read from the Chair, on which he did not think it necessary to make any remark, as they would be expl a i ne d - hereafter. He then came to the Resolutions relating to the Standing Orders on the Rail ways themselves. A gre a t num b er o the alterations they proposed were rendered necessary, in consequence of no Standing Orders being applicable to Railways before ; but ' having been placed generally under Standing Orders for canals and navigation. There was another change that deserved to be noticed—namely, the recommendation of the Committee with regard to a change in the time for giving notices. They proposed that the time for the de posit of maps, charts, and plans, should be changed to the Ist of March. This would have the effect of throwing them over six months, or even one Session of Parliament ; but he did not piopose to apply that rule to any Bill that might be presented next Session of Parliament. The Com mittee had drawn up two sets of resolutions, one referring to the next Session, and the other to Bills to be introduced after the next Session. Into the first of these series they had introduced all the amendments they had con sidered necessary, with the exception of the change of time to which he had alluded. He should hope that no objec tion would be made by the House to that arrangement. The Committee had paid great attention to the subject, and after the most mature consideration they had come to the resolution, that the proposed change was most neces sary and advisable. Greater opportunity would thereby be ' afforded to parties along the lines to make themselves ac quainted with the proposed lines, and the way in which it would affect them. In subsequent resolutions the Com mittee had modified the plan, the effect of which would be, that parties would have more time to get up their plans, and not get them up in so hasty a manner as here tofore, and they would be enabled to study more accurately the best lines. Besides that, an opportunity would be afforded during five or six months to make alterations even in the plan that had been deposited, and there was no doubt that the parties would profit by that opportunity. But a still more important advantage would be gained, as the parties applying for Bills would be obliged to put in their plans by the Ist of March, and these plans would be open to the inspection of Committes sitting on any other Bills. Great difficulty had arisen from the resolution regarding compet ing lines, and parties were found who suggested hastily got up plans, or projects without plans, which they submitted as competing lines, and thus considerable delay took place, and the bona fide projectors subjected to unnecessary expense. These were the principle reasons which had induced them to recommend these alterations. There was one other alteration which he would mention—they now proposed that parochial plans and sections should be lodged in the bands of parish clerks in England, and parish schoolmasters in Scotland. That would be an arrange ment which would be easily complied with by parties, and it would be a very great advan tage to small proprietors who were unable to travel, without serious inconvenience, to the Clerks of the Peace office. He did not intend to enter into the details of the Resolutions, but he thought It necessary to say so much of the changes contemplated by them. The Com mittee had not, of course, any official communication with the other House ; but they had unofficially met a Committee of the other House, and it was satisfactory that the resolutions had met with their concurrence, so that, if adopted, the practice of both Houses would be assimi lated, which would be a great advantage. He concluded by moving that the amendments be adopted. The SPEAKER then put the question, that the House should adopt the resolutions, when Mr. WILKS rose. He feared that the alteration pro posed by his Majesty's Ministers would not be of any great practical use. The House might think they were doing a great deal when in fact it was doing little or nothing. Nothing was mo re unsat i s f actory t h an t h e manner in which the private business of the House was conducted. The appointment of a new Select Committee of 42 Members would be a serious injury, instead of a great good ; it would lead to the increase of litigation, and a new system of ex pending the money of persons who made applications for Bills. Such things, in his opinion, ought to be deprecated. They wanted something similar to that which existed in the House ,of Lords to which every Bill might be referred— namely, a competent legal authority and legal officers. He did not think that the present plan would meet the sub stantial evils of which the country complained, and of which the House and every individual member of it had a right to complain. Sir J. GRAHAM said that the Hon. Member who had just sat down had introduced various topics which were not at all connected with the question before the House. He was decidedly of opinion it was worth while to try the experiment proposed. The only doubt he entertained was whether forty Members would undertake the business ; but he believed there would be no difficulty about that. The resolutions had been framed for the protection of public as well as private interests, and under these circumstances he hoped the House would agree to them. Mr. PARKER alluded to the great additional expense which was entailed upon the parties having Bills before Committees by the length of time which Counsel was al- , I lowed to occupy. He hoped the Right Hon. Baronet I would turn his attention to that part of the subject, A Mr. AGLIONBY thought, after the very clear 61 -1 business-like observations of the Hon. Baronet opposite, .n ° one could doubt the eligibility of the plan.—(Hear, hear.. The Hon. Member for Boston mistook the matter very much, if he supposed that the difficulties which Bills had. to encounter before the Standing Orders Committee were not of a very serious nature. He (Mr. Aglionby) in the course of his experience on Committees, had found that the greatest difficulties always arose from the Standing Orders. As to the impracticability of procuring 42 Mem; hers able and willing to perform the duties required °I them, he (Mr. Aglionby) had gone through the list the other day, and had made out to his surprise, from 1 0 : 411 sides of the House, a list of not less than 86 Members On" exceptionable in every respect, and he did not think thel'e would be much difficulty in reducing that number to 42. Captain PECHELL cordially approved of the resole-• tions which had been brought forward by the Committee. Great dissatisfactien had been created throughout the country by the system hitherto pursued in Railway Com mittees. He (Captain P.) could bear witness to that point from his experience on the Brighton Railway Committee.. —(Hear.) The Hon. Member for Boston had suggestedi that there ought to be a tribunal of the House of Lords ; but he (Captain P.) thought these Bills should be altogether thrown over the House of Lords.—(A laugh.) He com plained of the conduct pursued by their Lordships towards the Brighton Railway—(Hear, hear)—which was one of the consequences of Noble Lords being allowed to cony down and vote, without having heard a word of the evidence He hoped the resolutions would be adopted, for the matte could not be made worse—if they had been in force nove they would have been spared the late exhibition at the bar by Mr. Cundy. Mr. BROTHERTON supported the resolutions. Mr. WILKS explained—He had merely suggested that there should be an officer of that House analagous to the Chairman of Committees in the other Honer, • who would see that all private Bills were agreeable to certain known rules. Mr. POTTER said there were to be six CommiOees--- in what way were the Bills to be referred to them ? Mr. P. THOIIIPSON said that question would be settled by the general Committee. After some observations from Mr. GUEST and Lord G• SOMERSET, the resolution, as amended, was agreed to. On the resolution being put which gave power to the Committee to divide themselves into Sub-Committees, Mr. GUEST proposed, as an amendment, that three should be a quorum. After some conversation the motion was withdrawn, and the number fixed by the resolution, namely 5, was agreed to. On the resolution giving the right of appeal to the Standing Orders Committee being proposed, Sir JAMES GRAHAM, in answer to a question of Mr. Aglionby, said that it had never been the prac tice of the Standing Orders Committee to retry the facts. It was not intended that the Standing Orders Committee should retry the facts found by the Committee on the Bill. On a statement of the facts, and the special circumstances being made known to them, the Standing Orders Committee would exercise an equitable jurisdiction, and advise the House under the circumstances, that the Standing Orders be dispensed with. The duties of the Standing Orders Committee were strictly limited. Mr. AGLIONBY thought that the Committee ought to report as well when the Standing Orders were com plied with as when they were not complied with. In either case the parties had an equal ground of complaint, —either the opponents of the Bill, or the promoters of it. What he would propose was, that when the Committee re ported to the House that either the Standing Orders had or had not been complied with, they should report the facts to the House on which their decision had been come to, and any special circumstances. After a few words from Sir JAMES GRAHAM, the resolution was agreed to with this amendment. Mr. P. THOMSON had an amendment to suggnst to the next resolution, relative to the time which should intervene between the serving of the notices and the taking the Bill into consideration. After a few observations from Mr. PEASE, Mr. Wlmop and Sir J. GRAHAM, the amendment was withdrawn. Mr. AGLIONBY then moved a certain verbal ameiad ment to the next resolution, which after some observations from Sir George Clerk, Mr. Wilks, Mr. Brotherton, and Lord Sandon, as we understood, the amendments were negatived. BOROUGH OF STAFFORD. Mr. DIVETT moved the suspension of a writ for the borough of Stafford till ten days after the next session of Parliament. Sir T. FREMANTLE opposed the motion as prema ture to the extent carried by the Hon. Member, inasmuch as another Bill for the disfranchisement of the borough of Stafford was before the other House, and indeed a Bill which might meet the approbation of this House might be sent down from the other House of Parliament. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER thoug.hfr it right to ascertain, in the first instance, whether any legls' lotion of a reforming character was likely to. proceed froe 3 ; the other House in relation to the borough of Stafford ; IL not, he should be ready to support his Hon. Friend's' motion. ' Mr. DIVETT did not expect any satisfaotory legislation ; • from that House on the subject, but would, under the cir cumstances, content himself with moving that .no writ be issued till after Thursday week.—Agreed to. HAND-LOOM WEAVERS BILL. Mr. MAXWELL said, after the communications be • had received from the Noble Secretary of State for the ' Home Department, lie felt himself bound to postpone thie Bill till the next session. JEWISH CIVIL DISABILITIES BILL. On the Order of the Day for the second reading of the Jewish Disabilities Bill being read, ' Sir It. INGLIS opposed the second reading of the Bill , and contended that the effect of it would be to unchriso tianise this country. The Jews considered themselves ao the people of a distinct nation, having separate interests , and, therefore, he for one would be most unwilling to admit them as members of a Christian legislature. He was or posed not only to the principle involved in the Bill, but the mode in which it had been brought forward ; and thinking that a measure of such importance could not be properly c onsi'" dered in so thin a House, he felt it to be his duty to pro pose that the Bill should he read a second time that dal six months. Colonel SIBTHORP expressed his surprise that any members of a Christian Government could be found to in troduce such a measure. The Jews, it should be reek lected, disbelieved altogether in Christianity, and therefore thinking them unfit to receive the concession intended to be made to them, he thought that the best duty he could per' form -to his constituents would be to move that the noi se be counted. Strangers were accordi ng ly or d ere d t o w ithd raw , but i t was foun that forty Members, including the Speaker, we re present. On our return to the gallery we found The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER ad; dressing the House in favour of the motion for the secon d reading of the Bill. They should recollect that a Bill 00 the same subject had already passed that House, and that petitions in favour of the removal of the disabilities und er , which the Jews laboured had been presented from Ono:" all the large towns in the United Kingdom. Would it P° said that those who passed the former measure were person° who were dead to the interests of Christianity, or that arrY one set of men more than another were not accountable fo r their actions to the Supreme Being, who watched alii‘ u over all ? He knew that the Jews were essentially' moral people, and he was, therefore, convinced that the) would be as much bound by moral restraints as any other f class in the community. It was the barbarous policy former times that had left them the persecuted race th e y were ; and as he wished them to possess the same privilegel as the other subjects of his Majesty, he was desirous making London their J erusa l em , an d o f see i ng there be 0 longer a separate nation. Thi s was th e reason wbY wished this Bill to pass. Mr. FOSTER supported the amendment. The Je' v !!. of whom he would not sp ea k with disresp ec t, h a d all the g t hopes and aspirations fixed upon the promised land ; whether those hopes and aspirations would ever be r ealise" the fulness of time alone could show. In his opinion, l' vj o i ever, any attempt to incorporate them with the people any other nation would prove abortive, and the Right finu • Gentleman might be satisfied that they never would reg al; ; London as their Jerusalem. He did not believe the Je w _ themselves were desirous for this measure, and therefore 11' hoped the House would reject it. Mr. W. ROCHE earnestly supported the Bill, and felt " that praise was due to the Government f or h av ing broug,., the measure forward. Having himself for a long time s li fered exclusion from political privileges on account of r e _f gious opinions, he was more sensibly a li ve t o t h e justice u a any measure to relieve the civil di sa biliti es o f t h e Jove' ari e j a which the public feeling of th e country wou ld no t to u longer suffer to continu e . • Mr. A. TREVOR could not but complain that ill Right Hon. Gentl eman h a d t h oug h t f i t to bring forward a measure of this importance in so thin a House. 4 - 1 6 Tt member of the Ch urc h o f Ch r i st h e cou l d not g i ve a sl cal vote on this qu es ti on . H e cons id ere d t h e J ews perfectly unsuited for th e exerc i se o f l eg i s l at i ve f unct i ons , in "hie capacity they wou ld h ave to l eg i s l ate on ma tt e rs of . tb _ c deepest i n t erest to t h e P rotestant Ch urc h . A s a Christi an as well a s a M em b er o f P ar li ament, h e f e l t i t his duty t; protes against the easure. Mr. t BENETT m thought that, as the Jews lied be an found to discharge their social duties in every (resPef t et ly well as other subjects of the State, they were a, per o f deserving as others of political privileges, and as, eaPau ti e making proper use of them. He felt happy in istiPr r ito a v isa with measure, as be thought that no man ought be with civil incapacity on account of his religious opinions' THE SUN, LONDON, THURSDAY, AUGUST 4, E 836.