The Sun.
London, England, 1838-07-27 00:00:00

TUE SiTisT, LONDON, FRIDAY, JULY 27, 1838

came into office upon the express condition of carrying out
to their fullest extent the constitutional principles of
the Reform Bill, we cannot, for the life of us divine ; for
sure we are, that there is no Statesman who adheres
to the principles of that Bill with such inflexible constancy
as Lord BROUGHAM.

The debate in the House of Lords last night on the
the third reading of the Church Discipline Bill, which ter-
minated in the rejection of that measure, was charac-
terised by some circumstances so novel, not to say remark-
able, that we cannot help being particularly struck with
them. Lord BROUGHAM and the Bishop of EXETER cor-
dially concurred in their views of a public question, and
both fell, rather sharply, on the Archbishop of CANTER-
BUOY, who forgot his usual truly Mosaic meekness, and
flew into a passion. As to the vituperation poured out by
Dr. PuteroTTs upon the LORD CHANCELLOR for the
share which-the Noble and Learned Lord had in prepar-
ing the Bill, that can he no matter of surprise to any
one. The Rieht Rev. Father in God is well known to be
one of the most foul-mouthed ecclesiastics that ever wore
the apron, and that is saying not a little. -He is also well
furnished with the other requisites, which go to make up
the perfect churchman, among which malignity and h) po-
crisy stand out in prominent relief. Yet this is the Saint
who pretends to be pricked on by his con scienee to oppose
a measure which is intended to reform some very fl igrent
abuses in the Bishops' Courts, who swears that the
House of Lords, do what they may, " shall never de-
prive him of his integrity." We will venture to say
the Lords never thought of doing any such thing. There
are a good many Scotchmen among them who know that it
is not an cas'y matter to take breeches off a Highlandman.
We regret that this Bill, imperfect as it was, was not
allowed to pass. It is not a valid argument against the
measure that it is not exactly the same pith another re-
commendel some years ago by the Ecclesiastical Commis-
sioners. We will not take upon ourselves to say which is
the better of the two, but even allowing the pre-
sent one to be inferior to the former, the circum-
stance stated by the LORD CHANCELLOR, that until
this or some similar Bill is passed, no reform of the Eccle-
siastical Courts can take place, would have reconciled us to
it. Those Courts swarm with abuses ; and their existence
in their present form is not only disgraceful to the juris-
prudence of the country, but hostile to the spirit ofliberty
and a source of grievous oppression to a large class of the
community. We have seldom seen a more complete de-
fence than that made by the Noble and Learned Lord on
the Woolsack, or a more calm, dignified, yet severe re-
buke than that which he administered to the unbridled
insolence of the pamphleteering Bishop. -

In the House of Commons last night, the Irish Tithe
Bill was read a third time, and passed, after a rather ani-
mated debate, in which the measure was opposed by Mr.
DILLON BROWNE, Mr. HUME, Mr. WARD, Sir W. SOMER-
VILLE, Mr. GROTE, and Mr. HARVEY ; and supported
by Lords EBRINGTON, STANLEY, and JOHN RUSSELL, Sir
ROBERT PEEL, and Mr. O'Cosiseee. The speeches of
some of the supporters of the Bill were curious enough. Mr.
MORGAN JOHN O'CONNELL accepted the Bill, not because
it was a good one, but because it was better than
none—because it would effect a temporary advantage ;
Lord EBRINGTON voted for it, because at present
he regarded it as impossible to carry a measure for reducing
the Protestant ecclesiastical establishment in Ireland to an
extent commensurate with the wants of the Protestant
population ; Sir ROBERT PEEL supported it, though, in
his opinion anything but a final measure, because it em-
powered the parsons to draw upon the Treasury ; Mr.
O'CONNELL was in favour of it because it would put the
Irish landlords upon their trial ; Lord STANLEY adopted
it, because, being opposed in principle to a Tithe Bill of
his own, it proved the extent of his anxiety to pre-
serve the tranquillity of Ireland ; and finally Lord JouN
RUSSELL defended it on the singular ground of its
containing one clause, among many others, which the Tory
Magnates of the other House would not meddle with !
Singular enough, this clause is one of appropriation ; btit
then, instead of appropriating the surplus revenue of the
Irish Church to the purposes of education, it appropriates
the taxes of the English people to the use of the Irish land-
lords and parsons. Clauses to this effect are in no danger of
being meddled with by the Lords. So long as the claims of
the aristocracy and the priesthood are respected, it matters
not what fresh load is imposed on the shoulders of the
people. When it was proposed three years ago, to appro-
priate a portion of the surplus revenues of the Irish Church
to the purposes of national education, the cry of spoliation
rung from one extremity of the kingdom •to the °thee.
,
But now, when the proposal is simply to saddle the people'
of England with the payment of the Irish tithese—when
the act of Legislative spoliation is to operate in favour of
the Church and the landlords—the Tory sticklers for the
rights of property suddenly discover that all principles
should accommodate themselves to immediate circum-
stances ; and that, to borrow the forcible language of Sir
ROBERT PEEL last night, " it was necessary to do some-
thing else besides dealing in vague generalities about reason
and justice." So much for the morality of the Irish Tithe
Bill, which passed the Commons last night.
The Government must not indulge the illusion that this
Bill will put an end to Tithe agitation in Ireland. On 11
the contrary, it will only serve to convince the Irish
II
people of the efficacy of agitation, and of the moral
necessity they are under of continuing it, if they would
induce the British Parliament to pay any regard to their
just complaints. They have succeeded in ridding them-
selves of one instalment of the blood-stained impost ; and
assuredly they will not relax in a struggle in which they
have been partially successful. In the mean time, it will
rest with the people of England to determine, whether or
not
.they are prepared to add to their other burdens
the cost of maintaining a sinecure Church Establishment
in Ireland. It will be for them to say, whether they will or
will not tolerate the passing of an Annual Loan Bill for the
-use of the Irish Church, which the year following is to be
converted into a gift from the English people to the do-
nothing Protestant Hierarchy of Ireland ? Several of our
liberal Contemporaries denounce the conduct of Mr.
(Mos:Nese in supporting this Bill, knowing, as he must,
that it will not be satisfactory to the Irish people. With-
out being less opposed to the Bill than they are, we con-
fess we can ses no good reason whatever for condem-
sing the lino of policy pursued by the Hon. and Learned
Gentleman. It is quite in accordance with the instalment
sr stem ; and, moreover, it is but retributive justice to
compel us to taste the fruits of our own insane zeal, to
dragoon the people of Ireland into the adoption of a reli-
gion which they have unfortunately but too many reasons
to abhor. Mr. O'CONNELL'S support of the Tithe Bill
amounts in substance to this—" You, the people of Eng-
land, would compel us to pay a priesthood whose
services we do not require. This is manifestly
unjust ; but as I
am not in a condition to force you to
abandon such a scheme, let us sse how you will relish the
in obliged to pay your Den missionaries. Don't talk
o me about the unfairness of this. If it be unjust to
compel a Protestant to pay double tithes to th:: priest of
his own choice, it is surely a thousand times more unjust
to propose making the Catholic pay one-half of his double
tithes to a priest, not of his choice but of yours, and that too
'or no be:ter purpose than that of weekly consigning him,
beds- and soul, to eternal reprobation. Tosave mysoul you are
content to do violence to my feelings—to in-ult the faith of
my fathers. This is a pleasure to you, but to me it is a
se urce of perpetual vexation. Be content with my tole-
ration of your absurd interference, but as it pleases you, all I
ask is that you should bear the expense of it." But will
the people of England really do this ? Are they so ens_
moursd of the beauties and the advantages of an Eccles
iiistical Establishment, as to add to the amtniat of tithes at
irssent raid by them the cost of maintaining a sinecure
Church in Ireland ? To suppose that the . people of
Ire!and will be content with less than the total abolition of
:he Tithe System—as far as at least as regards the Catho-
ies and Dissenters—is preposterous. The Irish people will
lot pay it in any shape, so long as it is exclusively appro-
sriated to the sole support of the Protest tat Church. To
render such an impost palatable, the purposes to which it
is intended to devote it must be essentially national—

Issentially calculated to promote the moral and religious
well-being of the Irish people. The " final measure"

so long talked of must be preceded by an immense
r (Itiction in the Protestant Eeclesiaqical Establishment in
Ireland—by an equalization of the incomes with the duties
of the parochial cleArgy—by an entire abolition• of -the ab-
surd anomaly, nowhere witnessed but in Ireland, of churches
without congregations and paitors withont flocks. Till