The Sun.
London, England, 1836-07-26 00:00:00

); 1>
_ 'bl 4

LONDON,
TUESDAY EVENING, JULY 26, 1836.

The Established Church Bill passed the House of Com-
mons last night, after a division on the third reading, in
which a section of the Reformers recorded their protest
against it. These Members, no doubt, felt that they could
not conscientiously give their sanction to a measure of
which they did not approve themselves, of which they knew
their Constituents did not approve, and which, it cannot be
dissembled, has greatly disappointed the expectations of the
country. They knew also that their opposition to this
measure would be attended with none of those political con-
sequences which the greedy crew, who live in the hope of a
Chapter of Accidents turning up in their favour, have been
anticipating from it. These hungry expectants, poor un-
happy creatures, have been chuckling at the prospect of
a split between the Ministers and some of their
supporters, by which, in the event of a new
distribution of the loaves and fishes, they might
perchance, come in for a belly-full. We sincerely
condole with them on their disappointment. It is, we ac-
knowledge, a grievous one to men in their situation ; but
still there is some good in every evil. They may learn from
this severe trial a lesson to guard them from similar over-
wrought expectations, and similar disappointments in future.
They may, perhaps, be made to understand that public
men may support a Government in a general line of policy,
without being bound down to every individual measure, and
that they may even oppose that Government on some
points without withdrawing their confidence on others.
On moving the third reading of the Bill, Lord JOHN Rus-
SELL entered into an explanation of some parts of the Bill
which had been misunderstood, and endeavoured to show
that the measure was not so bad as it had been repre-
sented. As far as regards the number of Bishops to which
the Noble Lord adverted, a misrepresentation, as we stated
yesterday, has certainly gone abroad. There is no in-
crease in the number of the Lords Spiritual. Two old
Bishoprics are suppressed, and two new ones created in
their stead. In that respect then we are neither better
nor worse off than we were before.
We cannot say that the Noble Lord was equally suc-
cessful in that part of his statement in which he eulogised
the generosity and self-denial of the Bishops, in surren-
dering so much of their patronage, for the benefit of the
Church. This panegyric, we cannot help thinking, rather
out of place. We fully appreciate the meek and lowly
virtues which adorn the Episcopal Bench, but we have
never been able to discover self-denial among them ; and in
this matter of patronage it so happens that their Lordships
are trying hard to have a quid pro quo. They have, it is
true, given up some patronage which they held, but they
remunerate themselves for this sacrifice by seizing upon
that which belongs to the Deans and Chapters. This is
episcopal self-denial.
The portion of Lord JOHN RUSSELL'S speech which gave
the greatest satisfaction was that in which he announced
that he did not mean to contend against the opposition
which had arisen in and out of Parliament to the Church
Reform Bills, by pressing the others forward this Session.
These the Noble Lord gave up, and stated that the ques-
tion of Church-rates must be settled before they can be again
brought before Parliament. We are glad of this. We see
stronc, symptoms of dissatisfaction breaking out among
the Assenters, who regard Church-rates as the greatest of
all their grievances, and who have been led to expect that
they would, before this time, have been relieved from the
odious impost. We must at the same time caution Minis-
ters against indulging the hope, that any thing short of en-
tire abolition, as far as Dissenters are concerned, will sa-
tisfy them. As long as the Churches are used exclusively
for the worship of the Established Sect, and the church-
yards for the burial of their dead, the members of that
Sect must bear the expense of keeping them up. This
even common justice requires, were conscience left out
of the question.

The House of Lords last night discussed in Committee
the Irish Church Bill, on which occasion a more than
usually animated debate took place, especially on the sub-
ject of the appropriation clause, which the Tories, headed,
as it is fit such men should be, by Lord LYNDHURST,
in-
sisted on having struck out of the Bill ; and, as a matter of
course, carried their point by a majority of 91 ! This is a
victory which none will have such cause to rue as the vic-
tors. It is not the triumph of argument over sophistry, or
of common-sense over prejudice, but just the reverse ; and
as such it will be regarded by all the right-thinking portion
of the Community. Doubtless their Lordships imagine
that they have inflicted a severe blow on O'CONNELL by
their decision of last night ; but they are mistaken in this,
as in many other cases, for so far from weakening, they
have strengthened his moral influence ; so far from diminish-
ing, they have added ten cubits to, his political stature. They
have, in fact, armed him with ten-fold power as an Agitator ;
and svVi an infatuation peculiar to themselves, supplied
him -6°m their own armoury with the very weapons wherewith
he may best assail their Institution. Was ever such a dis-
interested set of Statesmen heard of ? Lord LYNDHURST,

in particular, is deserving of DANIEL'S lastinc, gratitude
' for his whole speech last night furnishes the Agitator with
sounder arguments in favour of a Reform of the Upper
House, than any he has yet put forth. When that Reform
takes place—which it assuredly will, and at no distant date,
for events hurry forward now, instead of creeping on at
their old snail's pace—it will not add much to their Lord-
ships' satisfaction to know that the deadliest shafts let fly
against them have been drawn from their own quiver.
Such, however, is the fact, as any one may see by reference
to Lord LYNDHURST'S speech, which, from the first
to the last sentence, proves nothing but the desperate
extremities to which the Tory Peers are prepared to go in
their support of the bloated Irish Church ; and, conse-
quently, the necessity of their being promptly stopped in
their mad career. Did his Lordship attempt to argue the
question of the appropriation clause ? Not a bit of it.
He preferred instead to shuffle—to equivocate—to throw
out, here a slander, and there a menace—to turn fact into
fiction; and fiction into fact—and then, by way of apposite
wind-up, to say that he had spoken and acted throughout
according to his conscience. We believe him. Some
men's consciences are as elastic as Indian-rubber, and, like
the stomach of the ostrich, will enable them to digest
any thing.

Lord MELBOURNE'S reply to the " Whig-and-something-
more"-ex-CHANcELLoa was firm, manly, and unanswera-
ble. Not a sophistry did he leave unexposed—not a
slander unpunished. Anticipating their Lordships' decision,
he stated that he " would not persevere in the measure,
deprived as it would then be of the principle of appropria-
tion, the principle. to which he stood pledged ;" and added
that " nevertheless he for one would not resign, so long as
he was supported by a majority of the other House of Par-
liament, and he believed of the country also." This deci-
sion will annoy the Tories, as much as it will gratify the
people.

The Bishop of EXETER'S speech, or rather spoken
pamphlet, was every way worthy of him. He assured us
that the Church of Ireland so far from being rich, was in
reality half-starved ; but he was careful to add, that it was
now beginning to present a " hopeful and gratifying ap-
pearance." Will the good Bishop vouchsafe to tell us
where these appearances are to be found ? Are we to
look for them in the double-barrel of Parson BERESFORD'S
blunderbuss, loaded by his own ghostly hands ; in the bloody
field of Rathcormac, where another Parson figured
in the un-apostolic character of commander-in-chief of an
army of tithe-proctors ; or in the Exchequer-writs which
are now flying all over Ireland, like a plague of locusts ?
If these be "the hopeful and gratifying appearances" of
which the Episcopal pamphleteer speaks, pray Heaven a
speedy end be put to them ! The pious Prelate went on
to accuse the Catholic Members of " tremendous perjury,"
in presuming to vote for a reform in the Church ; and stated
that their guilt "appalled the very imagination." What drivel-
ling cant is this ! Perjury forsooth, to assist in the endeavour
to support a tottering Church, to reform its abuses, and
emancipate it from the grinding despotism of Mammon !
Conduct like this may appal an Episcopal imagination,
but the people will view it with far different feelings.
The spotless Bishop added, that the Parliamentary
behaviour of the Catholics, as respected the Protestant
Church, almost induced him to think that we had " not
fallen on honest times." Possibly the " times" may not be
quite so " honest" as they ought to be; still they are vastly
superior to those which raised a JUDAS ISCARIOT to the
Episcopal Bench, and enabled him to raise his mitred head
among the Nobles of the land, solely by virtue of his apos-
tacy!— Verbuill sap.

The forthcoming number of the British and Foreign
Re clew, announced for publication to-morrow, contains an
admirable article on what it emphatically calls the " Irish
Question." We regret that the great length of the Parlia-
mentary debates must prevent us from noticing this article
before the appearance of the work, of which it forms so in-
teresting a part. The writer truly says, that the question
at issue is not the Tithe question, nor the Orange question,
nor the Corporation question—it is essentially the Irish
question.
" Until it be thoroughly determined," writes the Reviewer,
" whether there is, or is not to be an Union between Eng-
land and Ireland—not a parchment Union—not a treaty of
Limerick Union—but such as beseems two powerful, intelli-
gent, and independent nations; until it be perfectly under-
stood on what terms it is to stand, whether Ireland is to be
the subject, and England the sovereign, or both to be equal,
both co-hei itors of the same advantages and rights ; until this
be a reality, and not a phrase—a living, moving, effective prin-
ciple, in all things, and at all times—the great practical axiom
of all our policy—legislation for Ireland must be a constant
contresens,' a Sisyphean labour ; painful to one party, insult-
ing to the other ; utterly fruitless, and unsatisfactory to all."
This is sound doctrine ; nevertheless, the writer must be
aware that the terms of the Union between Great Britain
and Ireland can only be ascertained by the legislative la-
bours of Parliament. The declaration of Ministers, a pa-
ragraph in a King's speech, or a simple vote of the House
of Commons, could give to Ireland no assurance of equality
and independence which she does not possess at present.
Professions are nothing without acts ; and if the
latter be sufficiently liberal, the former are un-
necessary. When Ireland is placed on a level
with England when it will not sound in her
ears as a mockery to call her the Sister Kingdom
—when her facilities to improve her social institu-
tions are equal to those of England—then will she have
received the only proof worth accepting of her indepen-
dence and equality as a nation.
The vile system upon which the Tories acted so long—
the plausible pretences which they had ever ready when
justice to Ireland was demanded or prayed for by any por-
tion of her people, is well exposed by the Reviewer.
" Up to this hour," he observes, " the title of the Irish
people has not been acknowledged, or acknowledged only,
for the purposes of imposts, or in the moment of appre-
hension. Talk of a tax—talk of the Repeal question—talk of
independence, and you will hear enough of identity, and equa-
lity, and justice, and the one race, and the single family, and
the common country all around. But the moment the Irish
call for a practical proof of this justice—the moment they as-
sert this equality—the moment they act on the family privilege
—the moment they look for their portion in the common inhe-
ritance—" what share have they in David ? " is instantly the
answer. Now we frankly say—one thing or another. If Ireland
is to be considered as England, as Lord Stanley avers, when
church taxation is in question, in the name of that consistency
which is policy, if not politics, let Ireland be also considered as
England, when municipal franchises are in question. If Ire-
land is to be looked on as Ireland only, when common rights
are in question—if Ireland be organically irrecoverable sepa-
rate; as Lord Lyndhurst holds, let her also continue such when
there is a question of churches and impOsts. But really it is
much too grand inquisition a kind of logic, to incorporate for
the burthens and to separate for the franchises—to associate
in the privilege of suffering, and to reject from all enjoyment
in its compensations. One point only in all these contradic-
tions seems thorougly settled—in all its inconsistencies, the
party was consistently true to its own ascendancy. Whatever
course Ireland takes, the result is precisely the same. Witches
being witches, whether they sank or whether they swam, were
sure one way or the other to perish. If Ireland makes no stir
about her rights, she does not care for them : her brutalised
population are so sunk in the mire of thraldom, they do
not even understand the meaning of liberty : to give them
English franchises is to throw pearls before swine : if, on
the other side, she stirs, threatens, demands, down come the
very same personages with solemn spaeches to the majesty
of the laws, and with very violent lessons on sobriety and de-
corum, and how Englishmen are not to be bullied, and will
never give the slightest relief (such was the phrase a month
before the Relief Bill) on compulsion. If she does not agi-
tate, there is no reason why English institutions should be
forced upon her; and if she does agitate, there is every rea-
son why they should be refused. So that, between doing and
not doing, whether active or passive, she is sure to be ever in
the wrong, and her masters as sure to be ever in the right.
Every means is taken to keep her below England, and then
she is taunted for not being her equal."

The death of M. ARMAND CARREL, Editor of the
I National, is the severest blow the Republican party has
received since the elevation of Louis PHILLIPPE to the
throne of France. He had fought a duel with M. EMILE
GIRARDIN on Friday last, and received a wound of which
he died at St. Maude at an early hour on Sunday morning.
, About twelve o'clock the preceding evening his physician
announced his recovery hopeless, after which he calmly re-
signed himself to the will of heaven. His death took place
at five o'clock. He was one of the most upright and truly
honourable men in France—a man whom his bitterest political
enemies pointed to as a model of patriotic self-denial. His
love of republicanism, as it exists in America, was a species
of enthusiasm in which he indulged from boyhood, and
which no subsequent political changes tended to cool. He
was one of the principal leaders during the revolution of
1830, and assisted in placing Louis PHILLIPPE on the
throne—an act for which he afterwards solemnly, and at
the bar of the Court of Peers, implored the forgiveness of
God and his country. His death has created a great sensa-
tion in Paris. Men of all classes bewail his loss as a public
calamity, but especially the Republicans, who looked up to
him with feelings of confiding veneration. AI. EMILE DE
GIRARDIN is the Editor of La Presse, a new political
Journal, which has just started into existence. As the
National will be likely to publish a biographical sketch of
its late Editor, from the pen of some of his early colleagues,
we shall not now enter into any details of his short but
glorious career, as a patriot and political martyr. Hence-
forth his name will be synonymous with patriotism, em-
bodied i❑ its purest and noblest form.

The Paris Papers of Sunday, the whole of which we have
just received, are filled with comments upon the determina-
tion of the KING to omit the Grand Review during the ce-
lebration of the " Glorious Days," for which preparations
had been made, by special command of his MAJESTY. The
subject was discussed in six Cabinet Councils, at which the
KING presided, but of the reasons for the omission nothing
further is known than that they were of a character so grave
as to affect the life of the Sovereign.
On Saturday, Prince TALLEYRAND arrived in Paris,

and