The Sun.
London, England, 1838-07-05 00:00:00

visers. If, said this`phlek2tornist, you, my Lords Havvick,
J. Russq, (1g nst abide: by your early pledges in
favour of dry appiopnation clause, you ought to confess
that " Sir Robert Peel was right from the first, and that
you ought not to have upset his Government." There the
whole country agrees with Mr. Ward, and condemns the
Whig Ministers for a set of false, and factious, and un-
blushing hypocrites, beca'use. of their manifest eager-
ness practically to abandon from the very first hour
of their resuming office the professions through which
only they were enabled to expel Sir Robert Peel. How-
ever, in the teeth of Mr. Ward and of his " great princi-
ple," as he calls it, the Ministers have actually consented
to throw overboard from their state vessel that crazy cockle-
shell of " appropriation," in which, three years ago, they
sculled themselves into Whitehall. Warily, nevertheless,
and knavishly, have they executed this manoeuvre. In
letting down the boat they have not " cut the painter."
They keep the craft in tow, that they may haul it along-
side again the first convenient opportunity, and re-ship
their contraband cargo of appropriation. It is impossi-
ble not to observe the slyness, albeit shallowness, of
the trick resorted to by the Melbourne Cabinet with re-
gard to this Irish measure. They court the assent of the
Conservatives by telling them, " You may now not scruple
to pass the Tithe Bill, for see, we give up the appro-
priation clause." Well and good. The Conservatives, who
want nothing but to see the tithe question settled, concur
most frankly, and accept the Bill. But what is the lan-
guage of the same Ministers to Mr. Ward and to the Pa-
pists ? With a cunning wink, and forefinger to the nose,
they whisper confidentially, " Don't you be fools enough
to fancy that we have done with the appropriation clause.
Don't you suspect us of less enthusiasm for the enactment
of that clause than ever : we would pass it to-morrow if
we could ; and will assuredly vote for it whenever we can
do so with the slightest chance of succeeding." Such is
the trap laid for both parties in the House of Commons.
Let us mark then—do the fruits correspond with the seed ?
Does the harvest repay the labour ? Have the Conserva-
tives been seduced by such a momentary suspension of open
warfare against the Church into a surrender of any one point
essential to her security ? Not one. Mr. Shaw, who is
ever true and faithful to his trust, moved on Monday, after
the appropriation clause had been disposed of, that
the deduction from the incomes of the Irish clergy, to be
made by reason of the greater facility and comfort of deal-
ing with landlords than with tenants, should not exceed 2.5
per cent.—a proposition which wns opposed by Lord Mor-
peth, but carried against Ministers by a majority of 21.
When we consider that the average incomes of the Irish
clergy do not at present exceed 2501. per annum, all hu
mane and reasonable men must agree thet a deduction, for
peace sake, of 621. lOs. from so small a sum, thereby dimi-
nishing the clergyman's subsistence to the scanty modicum
of 1871. 10s. a-year, is abundantly harsh and oppressive. It
is nevertheless consolatory to remember, that when Mr.
Daniel O'Connell had, within these three years, infleence
enough with the House of Commons to carry against
the Church the outrageous deduction of 401. per cent.,
and the Whig Government last year set their de-
duction at 30, so much is the spirit of Parlament
no•v ameliorated towards the ministers of the Protestant
religion as to secure them against any encroachment
on their livelihood beyond one-fourth of its amount. The
chief pcstion, however, still remains to be decided. Will
the commutation of tithe for rent-charge--that is to say,
the transfer of the burden to the landlord, leaving the
tenant al:ozetlier free—materially and permanently con-
duce to the tranquillity of Ireland ? If the hardships al-
leg.ed by the poorer tenantry of the island to be ctralcd
upon them by the demand of the clergy for tithe were real
hardships, and mere hollow and fraudulent pretences, a;-
sowed as a cover for the incessant turbulence of the pea-
santry, the removal of every trace and shadow of that cause
must pio tanto pacify the poor. We are told, however,
by Mr. Daniel O'Connell, in this very last debate, that the
commutation was good -for nothing ; that Mr. Ward's
appropriation clause (having fulfilled its functions, and
turned out Sir Robert Psel) was good for nothing ;
that Mr. Ward's "reason" for the appropriation clause,
viz., it; tendency to promote the peace of Ireland,
was gos)df,r nothing, since Ireland—that is the O'Connell
Irelan.l, the Pop's!' priesthood and the multitude at their
beels—.4 rejected such paltry overtures towards ss-aeilic.ition
with scorn ; that Ireland was never in a state to nearly
bcrdoring on open r,bcliion as it had been for some time
past—the .‘ tranquillity was out on the surface—there was
a volcano ready to bust beneath their feet, and to involve
Ithe whole community in destruction." Great Heaven !
what tyill the advocates for, and flatterers of, Lord Mul-

grave say to this ? and to which of the winds of Heaven
has Lem :he solitary excuse for creating the Marquisate of
Normanby ! But O'Connell roes on—" In site of all
that the friends of Ireland had been doing, the people had
met—not in tens of thousands only, but in fifty thousands,
aye, and hundreds of thousands—for the entire abo-
lition of the Tithe system ;" that is the entire overthrow of
the Church Establishment. Why, in the name of God,
then, what sort of silly childish game has England been
playing for several years past, under the guise of con-
•eiliaticn ? What a shameful person to strut with the air
of a Lord-Lieutenant, of a Viceroy under the British
Crown, is this political mountebank, the Marquis of Nor-
manby, who gets up and lectures the House of Lords in
favour of the legality of such hundred thousand peasantry
meetings ! What, we ask once again, if O'Connell speaks
a single syllable of truth--ivhat is the purpose of all our
" concidatory" legislation ? What but mockery and scorn ?
He tells us, indeed, few facts which the true friends of the
Bi itish Crown in Ireland did not already know, but his
speech is full of admissions, new to the ears of a British
Parliament, as being the admissions of an Irish Papist.
He directly, openly, unequivocally, datingly, threatens us-
with the immediate extinction of our Protestant Church
in Ireland, as the only chance of escaping destruction by
civil war—that is, by another Popish rebellion, which, in-
deed, is not now to wait for even the old signal announced
last year, viz.,, the installation of a Peel and Wellington
Cabinet ! Whitt a beautiful catastrophe we have arrived
at under our precious Reform system.—Timer.
A declaration of general principle upon mattdrs of legis-
lation and government from any important Member of the
present Administration is not a thing to be passed over
without some especial notice. We shall therefore revert
to Lord Melbourne's declaration of Monday evening, which
drew forth such loud and almost unanimous cheers from
the Noble Lords who were present ; and we shall do so
for the purpose of briefly considering at what value such a
' declaration ought to be estimated by those who have hi-
' therto felt no slight apprehension for the stability of cer-
tain important regulations, owing to the character and con-
duct of the existing Government. The Viscount Mel-
bourne on Monday evening was pleased to say that he con-
' curred in an opinion which had been expressed in the pre-
' ceding debate on the Corn-laws, and which indeed referred
' to all matters of policy, but particularly to questions of
commerce and finance—those interests might flou-
rish under inconvenient regulations—under systems
impolitic and imprudent, under laws the most calcu-
lated to repress and subdue their energies ; they might
flourish in a soil the most rugged, and in a climate the most
ungenial ; but they could not prosper, they could not thrive,
under a system of frequent fluctuation and change. At
this point the Noble Viscount was interrupted by loud
' cheers, which having subsided, he went on to say that there
was great danger in change, and next to change itself was
to be dreaded and feared the constant apprehension of
change. Influenced by such considerations, he declared
that he had no intention whatever of introducing any
change or alteration in the Corn Laws, and he was glad to
hear that this question was not likely to be made the sub-
ject of discussion this Session. There is unquestionably
in this a strong expression of opinion in favour of Con-
servatism, and if there were any reason to believe that
the present Ministers would rather resign the Govern-
ment, than carry into effect a system of policy which they
did not approve, such a declaration of opinion would
be a fair ground for considerable confidence that the policy
evett of the present Government would be essentially
Conservative. But we regret to have to add that
even in the course of this very speech which so con-
servatively concluded there were pains taken by Lord Mel-
bourne to show that, as a Minister, he was liable to be
guided by something else than his own judgment of the
merits of important questions upon which he might be called
upon to decide. Now, without denying that cases of ex-
ception may now and then occur, in which a Minister is
right rather to consider the opinion of some great interest
or body of the people in the country than his own opinion,
and to act upon that consideration, and continue in the Go-
vernment for the sake of the general policy in which his
own opinion and that of the country are in harmony—
though we do not deny that such cases may rarely occur,
yet we think that for a Minister to go upon a system of
deference to the opinion of others—to hold out as a ge-
neral rule that whatever his own views may be, he will
become the agent of a majority as soon as the opinion of
that majority shall have been with sufficient vehemence ex-
pressed—to do this, is to abandon the most solemn duty
of a Minister of the Crown, and even the honour of a
public man. Of what value is it that a Minister acquaints
the public that he is not only adverse to a particular mea-
sure because he thinks it would be a change for the worss,
but because upon general principle he is adverse to change
for its own sake, if he tells us in the very same speech, or
at letz,t gives us strong reason to suppose that were a great
majority to ask for that which he deems so objection-
I able, he might himself possibly be the introducer of
the very measure he condemns ? What is this but to
offer a kind of invitation to popular clamour—what is
it but to say—" I really don't like to give you this, hut
if you make a confounded noise about it, and furnish
me with a good excuse for yielding, why then I will
yield ?" Now, let us advert to what Lord Melbourne said
before that Conservative part of his address which we have

already quoted. He *sairithat he could not gist their
Lordships any opinion upon' the general principle upon
which the Corn Laws were founded, but IM agreed entirely
in the opinion of Lord Ashburton, that they had worked
extremely well for the interests of both parties—much bet-
ter than any former system had ever done. He could not
then attempt to change such a system, unless that change
appeared to be in accordance with the wishes of the great
majority of the people—unless he felt that in so doing he
would be acting for the benefit of the people and in con-
formity with their will. Of course neither Lord Mel-
bourne nor any other Prime Minister would do any-
thing which he thought was not for the benefit of the
people. The only point of importance, therefore, which we
gather from the above, is, that though Lord Melbourne
thinks the 'present system of Corn Laws an excellent
system, yet if a great majority of the people called
for its overthrow, he might be disposed to undertake
the part of deputy to that majority, and act upon their will
rather than upon his own judgment. And thus his Lord-
ship appears to have been understood by the opponents- of
the Corn Laws ; for with less than his usual opacity of mind,
that eminently foolish person, the Earl Fitzwilliam, said
that he felt assured from the manner and the terms used
by the Noble Viscount, that his declaration did not extend
beyond the intentions of the Government as at present
advised, in the present situation of the country, and as
called upon by present circumstances, and that it was not
any firm predetermination, under any circumstances, to
abide by the present laws. Moreover, we find that a
Ministerial newspaper, which advocates the overthrow
of the present Corn-laws, has the assurance to intimate
that Ministers decline to take this line of policy only be-
cause the people do not press forward with sufficient
vehemence in its favour. Viscount Melbourne says
he highly approves of the present system of Corn-laws,
but the newspaper patronised by his Government
says, that his words, "if fairly interpreted, meant merely
this—that a Ministry can only hope to be able effect great
changes in matters of commercial policy and finance when
the opinion of the country has been decidedly expressed in
their favour. All Ministers discover in time that it does
not add to their own comfort to invite innovations. When
the people are determined on any change, the Ministry
must of course give eject to the popular will." What a
compliment this is to the power and sincerity of Lord Vis-
count Melbourne I . We cannot too often protest against the
mean anti dangerous theory with regard to the affairs of
British government and legislation, that the people are to be
the dictators of the policy of both, and that Members of
Parliament and of the Government ought to be mere deputies
or agents fcr the fulfilment of the popular will. This is
not. the British Constitution, but rns..re democracy, no mat-
ter in what forms it may be disguised, or by what name
it may be called. The relation of a Minister to the
public is something like that of a Member of the House
of Commons to his constituents, and what that is we knew
from Edmund Burke who has described it in words that
can never die while sound political philosophy and noble
eloquence of language are respected in this country.
" The wishes of a Member's constituents ought to have
great weight with him; their opinion high respect; their be-
siness unremitted attention. lt is his duty to sacrifice his re-
pose, his pleAsures, his satisfaction to theirs ; and above all, in
every case, to prefer their interest to his own. But his un-
biassed opinion, his mature judgment, his enlightened con-
science, ought not to sacrifice to them, to any man, or to
arty set cf men living. These he does net derive from their
pleasure—no, nor from the law and the Constitution. They
are a trust forms Providence, for the abuse of which he is
deeply answerable. A representative o;Ncs his constituents
not lt:s irpiustry only, hut his judgment, and he betrays instead
of s:srving them, if i.e sacrifices it to their opinion.
'Phis ought to Le Lord Melbourne's view of hi., duty.
If it were so, no Yoursof a "great majority"—no apparent
manifestation of the popular will, would make him sacrifice
his deliberate judgment concerning the existing system of
the Corn Laws, or any other existing system of which his
judgment approves,—Allorning Post.
SECOND

n~rjON.

- •
SUN OFFICE, S6Teil 0' Chia,

ADDITIONAL PROMOTION IN THE
NAVY.

The undermentioned Commanders arc to be promoted to
the rank of Captain :
Richard Devonshire, Richard Copelanai, Charles Rich,
John Robertson (a), Robert Deans, W. Richardson (a),
George Charles Blake, Mark H. Sweney, William P.
Stanley, William lI,It, William 11. Piers-m, John Jer-
vis Tucker, John Kingc-,nne, Brunswick Popham, Wil-
liam Oldrey, Thomas Ogle, G,orge Evans, William John
Cole, K. H., Richard Keane, John Hackett, William Picking-,
J. J. F. Newell, John Forster, John Parker, George Daniell,
Frederick Bullock, Russell Eliott, Alfred Luekraft, John E.
Erskine, James Hope, George Augustus Sainthil!, F. P.
Blackwood, Horatio Thomas Austin, William Ramsay, and
Edward Stanley.
_ _ _

The under-Mentioned Li, utenints to be promoted to the
rank (,f Commander :

G. G. lliail, Josph Roche, Edmund Norcott, Henry
Church, William Hubbard (a), Ilenry Stroud, Hcnry D.
T. ivysden, H. V. Huntley, Henry Frederick Peake, C. J. F.
4.Cewton, Frederick Wood, Francis Grove, James Hamilton
Ward, Lewis Tobin Jones, Edward St. Leger Cannon, John
M'Dor.ell, William Dickey, Charles Wilson Riley, Francis
Liardct, John Hathorn, William M'llxaine, Ralph Barton,
Richard Burridge. William Griffin, Frederick Hutton, Bird
Allen, Frederick W. H. Glasse, Edward Barnett, John B.
Woodthorpe, Charles G. Robinson, William C. Phillott,
Sackett live, Richard Robinson, John V. Fletcher, James
A. Legard, Thomas L. Massie, ‘Voodford Williams, Robert
Kerr, A. L. Montgomery, Samuel Mercer, William Louis,
Richard Inman, Robert Spencer Robinson, H. R. Henry,
Robert 'l'. Stcpford, lion. H. Antony Murray, John H.
Windham, Hon. S. I'. Carnegie, Henry Bagot, and C. G. E.
Napier.
The undermentioned Mates to be promoted to the rank of
Lieutenant

Thomas S. Coppinger, James F. L. Wood, J. C. Robin-
son, J. F. S. Starke, Charles G. Phillipps, Robert O'Brien,
N. S. Knott, William Coles, James S. A. Dennis, John F.
Guyon, N. Norway, Samuel Fowell, R. W. Suckling, J. B.
Massie, William Morris, George W. Winlo, Henry G.
Shute, Jahn Compton, A. C. May, Michael De Courcy,
Arthur M. Noad, William Frederick Feed, Richard A.
Oliver, Z:.ccbeus Andrew, Richard M. Robertson, John Alfred
Paul, Edward James Bedford, Cm3ar Cotterell Powell, C. F.
Wade, Matthew Nolloth, Walter Need, B. H. Bunco, J. C.
Catlin, Griffith G. Phillips, J. Ormond Freeland, Roger
Curtis, Charles G-ey Rigge, C. G. Crawley, William Cot-
terell Wood, H. E. B. Bennet, James Fellowes, William
Thorpe, James Henry Bridges, John Robert Crighton Help-
man, George Blane, E. B. P. Von Donop, William Clayton,
H. A. Storey, Charles F. Schomberg, Peter Fisher, Charles
Barker, NV. S. Wiseman, W. H. Church, C. F. A. Shadwell,
J. C. S. Field, Charles James Balfour, Stephen Bradley, F
Denison, William F. Burnett, F. E. Johnston.

MPERIAL PARLIAMENT.

(THIS EVENING.)

HOUSE OF COMMONS.
IB)atiinn6e,as,nnEo.n,
The SPEAKER entered the House at Four o'Clock, but there
being only the following thirty-two Members present, the
Canning,c-Ah erto
SI J.
House stood adjourned :
Butter, Hon. P.
Lard Br
Parrott, J.
Wallace, It Sandon, Lord
Turner, W. I3ewes, 'l'.
Lynch, H A. Hodges, T. L.
Barnard, K. G. Dugdale, W. S.
Pease, Joseph Palmer, G.
SI yle, Sir T. C. Duncan, Lord
Finch, Francis Labouchere, H.
Jones, T.

Graham, Sir J.
Lushington, C.
Murray, J A.
Freslitield, J. W
Manners, Lsrd C.
Warburton, 11.
Divett, E.
Thornely, Thomas
Hawes, B.
Salwey, Colonel
Ferguson, Sir Robert

HOUSE OP LORDS.
The Earl of SHAFTESBURY, in the absence of the LORD
CHANCELLOR, took his seat on the Woolsack at Fivo o'clock.

EDUCATION.
Lord BROUGHAM presented a petition from the county
of Lancaster (we believe), praying for a better system of edu-
cation for the lower orders. His Lordship said some objection
had been taken to the phrase "lower orders,"
as though it
meant anything more than that the parties referred to were
" lower" in the artificial scale of society ; however, as this ob-
jection had been taken, he (Lord Brougham)
would use an-
other phrase—« the working classes.'—to which he
appre-
hended
no objection could be taken, as many of their Lor-
dships were of the " workine. classes."—( Hear, and laughter.)
BEER SHOPS.
The Noble and Learned Lord then presented a petition
signed by 1,000 of the bankers, merchants, and tradesmen of
Bristol, complaining of the ill effects of the late Beer Act, and of
the pernicious effects produced by the numerous beer shops
throughout the country. He stated that so convinced was he
of
the baneful influence of the beer shops, and the encouragement
they afforded to vice of every description, that he would
pre-
sent to the House a Bill to repeal that Beer Act. The Noble
Lord concluded by laying on the table his Bill, which would
put an end to the operation of the Beer Act after the Ist of
April next, and he moved that the Bill be read a first time.
The Duke of WE L LING TON said when the measure was
brought before Parliament it was strongly recommended by
many as tending to put an end to the brewers' monopoly ; but
at the time he was aware of the many inconveniences attending
it. But there was another Act which had done a great deal of
good, and that was the Poor Law Amendment Act, for there
were not near so many beer-houses now as there were previous
to the pissing of that Act, and a great deal less money was
now spent in them than formerly. It was most desirable
chart an end should be completely put to beer.shops.
( Loud cheering.) Ile was doubtful whether such
measure could originate with this House. It would be
batter if it origLatel with the other House. But wherever it
came from he would give it every assistance and support in his
power, being thoroughly convinced that no greater evil 'nad
been done to this country than by the adoption of that measure.
—( Hear, hear. )
Lord BRO UG HAM said lie had listened with great de-
light to the obs-,rvations of the Noble Duke. He considered
that the sentence of death had gone forth again,t the beer-
shops, and that it was only respited for forms which rtmst be
complied with before it could be finally executed.—(Chem.)