The Sun.
London, England, 1839-07-05 00:00:00

-
that the Parliament must necessarily be successful in
legislating for Canada.
The House went into a Committee on the Irish
Municipal Bill. Mr. SwAw moved an amendment
on the franchise clause, in order to enhance the sum.
A very short debate ensued, in which Lord ELIOT made
a sensible speech against Mr. Susses amendment. The
Noble Lord censured in severe but just terms the lan-
guage which had been used at public meetings by Pro-
testant clergymen against the Catholics. Sir R. PEEL took
a different view from Lord ELIOT, and supported the
amendment. The Committee divided, and the Tories
made a poor exhibition ; though it did them credit to
muster only to the number of 54 in support of Mr. SHAW'S
offensiveness. The Ministers had 104, and consequently
had a majority of 50. Nor were they much better on
two subsequent divisions, on both of which the Minis-
ters had a majority of 45. The Tories showed their
evil will, but did not find a way. Several clauses were
postponed, and the Report was ordered to be brought
up on Monday. This measure occupied the House the
principal part of the evening.
The Bills of Exchange Bill went through Committee.
The other Orders of the Day were then disposed
of, and the House adjourned at Half-past Two o'Clock.

Our readers are well aware that a great contest is
going on in this country between labour and capital,
and that many of the labourers contend that they
are poor and destitute, only because the interest or
profit on capital engrosses all their produce. We
say nothing of the truth or falsehood of the theory,
we merely advert to a known fact, and affirm that
at present the bulk of the labourers and the bulk
of the capitalists are ranged in opposition. We
need not add that the former are, by comparison,
the poor, and the' latter the rich. Whatever dif-
ference may exist between them they both have
this in common, that they read newspapers, and
take considerable interest in public affairs.
Now let us suppose that some labourer. who has
been' over and over again. told that the Church of
England is the poor man's Church, that it is to
be venerated and preserved because it is the poor
man's friend—let us suppose a labourer should read
the Bishop of LONDON'S speech at the. dinner of
the Goldsmith's Company on Wednesday, and en•
deavour to conjecture what that labourer would say.
He would read—

" The Bishop of LONDON said—lt cannot be otherwise
than gratifying to me to have my health proposed in such
an assembly and within the walls of so distinguished a
corporation. I feel as Bishop of this most important dio-
cese some (part of the honour which the existence of so
distinguished a corporation as this, within its limits,
confers, and I can, along with the illustrious per-
sons who have preceded me, bear my willing testimony
to its liberal and extended charity.—( Hear, hear.)
I speak not now of its munificence in other matters, but I
feel a deep gratitude for the assistance it has rendered me
in promoting an important plan which I have laid before
the public for providing for the spiritual destitution of this
great city. To many of the great corporations, but more
especially to the goldsmiths, I hold myself indebted for
munificent assistance, not only in giving sites for schools,
but great pecuniary assistance.—( Hear, hear.) Such acts
as these sanctify and render legitimate the exercise of such
princely hospitality as we now enjoy, and render most
pleasing the task which devolves upon me of returning you
my heartfelt thanks for the manner in which my health has
been received.—( Hear, hear. )" _ _

He would then say, we suppose, " the Bishop
of LONDON was loud in his praise of the gold-
smiths ; I thought that they were all great capital-
ists, men who lent money out at usury ; that
amongst them were persons who discounted the
notes of needy heirs, and grew rich on the neces-
sities and the follies of youth. Surely the gold-
smiths are all profitmongers, who make their money
labour for them ; they are of the shopocrats who
oppress the poor. They are said to have great
estates in Ireland ; to be absentee landlords ; and
they add to their rent-roll by that Corn-
law which contributes to pinch me and my
family. What confidence can I have in a Bishop who
praises such men, who dines with them, and who
rejoices in their princely hospitality, instead of re-
buking them for oppressing the poor. But I see
why the Bishop is on their side. He is one of
them. He is himself a landlord, a sort of Prince
Bishop with a large revenue, part of which is de-
rived from a tax on my bread, and the whole of
which comes out of my labour and the labour of
others like myself. Moreover, they have subscribed
to the Bishop's plan for spiritualizing the people.
They have bought his good word, as the old
Barons bought absolution from the Catholic
priests, by giving him a site for a Church and
perhaps an income for one of his followers. He
says he has received great pecuniary assistance,'
and so he looks with satisfaction on the princely
hospitality, the power to purchase which is ob-
tained by oppressing the poor and the needy. The
Bishop shares the spoils of which the labourers
are plundered ; and, like the Catholic priest, stand-
ing up at table, he absolves the plunderers. A site,
and a pecuniary gift, are handed over to him, and he
praises the magnificence which springs from our
suffering, and lauds the virtue by which I starve.
The Bishop is leagued with my opponents ; a little
pecuniary advantage, or advantage of patronage,
blinds him to the odious avarice of which I and
other labourers are the victims ; and, for the sake of
power, he makes common cause with my enemies.
Poor man's friend! poor man's Church indeed ! Yes,
such a friend as the Irish landlord is to his tenantry,
who requites the toil by which he has been enriched
by unroofing their houses, and turning them naked
and helpless out to die in a ditch."
Some reflections like those must, we apprehend,
pass through the minds of the labourers, who now
regard the capitalists as their opponents, on reading
the Bishop of LONDON'S speech ; and if there be
in them an approximation to truth or probability, it
is impossible that the bulk of the people should
look with either affection or respect on the so-called
poor man's Church. That it has Bishops who are
necessarily ranged with their enemies, must make it
hateful to them.

That the disposition and opinions we have
ascribed to the working classes exist to a great
extent, no man can doubt ; and to us it is equally
certain that they threaten the country with a more
serious calamity than the subversion of a throne or
a change in the form of government, unless justice
be done to the people. The Tory prints, as well
as the mere Whig prints, harp very often on the
vices and crimes and evil disposition of the people. It
is right and necessary, therefore, to remind them, and
to remind the public, that this disposition, and the
danger which now threatens the country, have arisen
while the Church has been maintained in all its
splendour. All the wealth it ever had since the
Restoration, and a great deal more, has been secured
to it; it has reigned paramount in the councils of the
Legislature ; the people have been in its hands, and
the result is a great separation of interest amongst
the different classes, a mutual fear and hatred, a
disruption of social ties, and a fearful coming of
social disorganization. These evils have neither
been guarded against, nor can they now be cured,
by the Church. How should they ? The priest-
hood confine their instruction to the contents of
the Scriptures. They travel not beyond them.
They insist that these are all-sufficient, they
will not allow of the State giving other instruction,
and in the Scriptures there is not one word about
capitalists and labourers. The distinction was not
known, the two classes did not exist, when any part
of the Scriptures was composed. Masters were
then, and slaves were then ; but a state of society
like ours was absolutely unknown when any part of
the Scriptures aas composed. How is it possible,
therefore, for those men either to prevent or to
cure the evils of society by instruction, which can-
not notice; much less comprehend, that mutual
relation of capitalists and labourers, which the
mass of the labourers say is the cause of their
radation ?

We ventured to assert a few days ago, that Sir
ROBERT PEEL and Lord STANLEY could not
act long in harmony should they come into office
together. Already they are rivals. At the dinner
of the Goldsmiths' Company, on Wednesday, this
was apparent, and Lord STANLEY far outshone
his more modest superior. It is the Noble Lord's
praise to be a better Churchman than Sir ROBERT.
' He is the genuine stuff out of which zealots
are made, and he
..,(Toes fearlessly the whole
hog with the bigots.- They admire him the
more that the
expedient Baronet, who has be-
trayed them before, will, when convenient, betray
them again ; and they
who is fierce and
are ready to follow his rival,
Already Sir ROBERT'S thoroughgoing like themselves.
foiz: the true clerical splengdloorui
Lord STANLEY encouraged the
re so
f areLo
rd darkening
s r A
noblemen, eminent prelates, and great
distinguished
men of science who were assembled at table, to la
array N LEb
Yoe f
hour for their country. He and they havein -
thing to do for themselves, can afford to be abctnivoe-
for others. Such patriots are found to be great
nuisances by those whom they take under their
tutelage. What they mean by taking care of the
country is to meddle with all the concerns, lay and