The Sun.
London, England, 1831-09-01 00:00:00

SPIRIT OF THE PUBLIC JOURNALS.

The case of Sir George Hill came before the
louse of Commons in the Irish estimates last night.
This is a most discreditable transaction to the last
Government. Here was a public defaulter, who had
been, by the statement of his own relative, applied
to frequently and fruitlessly for money which was due
to tie public service from him, the head of the
whole Treasury Department of Ireland ! and yet the
Minister+ of the day appointed that same defaulter
to the Government of a West Indian colony, where
he would have, and has actually, to perform the
financial and judicial functions of Chancellor, as well
a• that of representative of the Crown. We observe
chat neither Sir Robert Peel, Mr. Dawson's brother-
IL-law, nor Mr. Goulburn, late Member for Armagh,
ventured to say one word in favour of that appoint-
,rent. But it is obvious to all the world that either
SI. George Hill must ins'antly be recalled, or the
present lilinisters become accessories to the culpable
conduct of those who went before them, and every
mail of yet unblemished reputation, holding a Go-
v, rnment under the Crown of England, will, if he
respect; himself, feel it necessary to resign his
office.—Times.

Whilst we congratulate the country upon the per-
manent, majorities on most of the points of moment
connected with the Reform Bill, we must again and
again express our regret at the protracted and re-
newed debates which generally precede the occa-
sions on which those majorities are exhibited by
division. On Tuesday night there was a debate of
eight hours on a clause (the twenty-4econd), the
princ.ple of which had been decided (we had almost
•a;d twent7-two times, but certainly) frequently be-
fore. It was, whether freemen should continue to
be allowed to vote in right of their corporate cha-
Neter, without reference to any other right. We
do not intend to argue the clause over again, though
our reasonings delay not the progress of the Bill,
like those in the house of Commons. Is it not
clear, that the question itself was decided when it
win en.:cted that a house of 101. annusl ♦alue should
be in all cases necessary to quality the tenant for a
vote? On occasions of a similar kind, therefore,

where delay only is sought by repeated discussions,
it would surely be wise to call at once for the ques-
tion, and proceed, if so it must be, to the division,
as in cases of vexatious motions for adjournment.
The Bill has had the amplest consiieratio❑ possible.
Its importance, the institutions which it changes,
and the interests which its affects, required that care ;
but the care having been taken, and the principle
once decided, it is trifling with the best fechigs of
he people to recal it into debate, and suffer it to be
contested again.—Times.

The Archbishop of Canterbury, it will be per-
ceived, moved on Tuesday night the second reading
of the Bill for restraining the abuse of pluralities in
the Church. It was not easy, from the tone of
voice in which the Most Rev. Prelate spoke, to
catch the nature of those amendments which he
proposed in the law as now existing. Upon collat-
ing the different reports of his speech, however, and
of Lord Wynford's, one change does seem to have
been unambiguously stived,—namely, that in future
mare than one living shall not be held by the same
person at a greater distance than 30 miles from any
other living of which he may be the incumbent.
Otie of the Bishops asserted that this would go to
demolish two-thirds of the present amount of plu-
ralities. Now, for information sake, being ignorant
persons, we are very desirous of hearing why, if the
privilege of holding two preferments distant 40
miles asunder be t•tken away, that of possessing
them within the range of 30 milts should be conti-
nued. It is not plain to us by %%hat expedient a
clergyman could contrive to officiate more effectually
in two parishes, one of which was at or near Charl-
ton, for instance, and one near Windsor, than if they
had been situated, one in London, and the other at
Reading. Lord Wynford, we see, objects to
the large discretionary powers vested in the
bench of Bishops or Archbishops, under which
they may giant dispensations for holding plu-
ralities,—that is, for evading the Act of Par-
liament,—for defrauding, under high authority,
a Christian congregation of its rights, and de-
feating at one blow the law and the gospel. They
must be formidable dispensing powers indeed which
the prerogative spirit of Lord Wynford would ob-
ject to, when possessed by men in lawn sleeves. It
would be well to exhibit the amount of them. We
have heard—(but then we confess oar ignorance)—
we have heard that the law at present, if not in force
at least on the stattee book, is full of declarations
against pluralities. The worthy Archbishop even
vents his denunciation at the excess to which the
practice had been carried. To be sure, his Grace
had the less reason to be tender upon the subject,
because his examples of greediness and abuse were
drawn from the 13th century, and from Roman
Catholic practice. Ever since, until just now that
there is a troublesome clamour against the grievance,
we take for granted that the Right Rev. Bench
could have known nothing at all about such abomi-
nations as pluralities, or they would surely not have
postponed the redress of them to so late an hour.
But indeed it is time to be serious upon matters
which have so deeply moved the indignation of the
country, and have proved such a scandal in the
eyes of most Christian men. The Archbishop of
Canterbury informs us, and in tone as if he were
vindicating the Church from some heinous charge,
that " pluralities were struck at by the canon law,
under penalties of suspension and even of excom-
munication. But the practice was in time introduced
of granting dispensations to hold pluralities of livings,
and by this means," says the Archbishop,—by
means, to wit, of dispensations,—" abuses began to
be introduced, which afterwards grew to an enor-
mous pitch," &c. Then if dispensations were the
source of abuses, why, we ask, are dispensations
still permitted to exist ? We all know and feel
that pluralities exist throughout the whole king-
dom to the most shameful extent, and that they
never could have reached that pitch but by means
of dispensations ; and yet the dispensing power is
continued in the present Church Reform Bill with
so little modesty or prudence as to make Lord
Wynford himself remonstrate against its dan-
gerous magnitude. There is not the smallest
doubt that the law against pluralities will
be enforced most invariably, most strictly,
and religiously, in every case where a poor,
unconnected, untriended parson, with a living of
some 801. or 1001. a year, solicits an addition to it
of equal or inferior value. " Oh, no," would be the
language of my Lord Bishop, " pluralities are con-
demned by the Church and State; and although we
have a dispensing power, it is a prerogative, which,
like the king's veto on a Bill sent up by both
Houses, ought never to be exercised but in an ex-
treme case." Let us hear, however, what my Lord
Bishop will say, when a request is made by a can-
didate for plurality having any of the Lord Bishop's
own blood in his veins, or that of any high aristo-
cratic patron, or any claim but that which springs
from poverty and necessity, unaided by blood or
power. Will the dispensation be then suffered to
sleep? Will there then be any talk about Acts of
Parliament or extreme cases ? But the canon law
condemns pluralities; and now the Bench of
Bishops agree formally to reprobate them. Yet see
how doctors differ; for here is our own tall corre-
spondent, who condescends to be the champion of
pluralities, at work again upon his former ground,—
' which ground it is plain that no Bishop, not the
canon law itself, has dared to occupy,—for he tells us
in a long and curious letter of this day, and indeed
:is a qual fier of some of his own supposed exttava-
gancies, and the " non-residence and pluralities are
not in themselves abuses !" He then confounds
the expediency of " gradations" in the Church with
that of " non-residence arid pluralities ; ' and be-
cause Lord Harrowby is a friend to "..gradations,"
which word he does not exploit', "I"ertell"td:kne.t
undertakes to construe it fiT,
htimo'hattive 'one awl' I lie
out " 'nuke" and '
Lord Harrowby talks of I k
jiving,. When
Church, we presume tt at Lis
s‘vmh:ngnaapplied to things called
q
isnaemetiaslit'giellifiicaotiothne,