The Sun.
London, England, 1838-08-03 00:00:00

Bcneh in this- part of the kingdom, it would stand -them
more in stead, and be more beneficial to the interests of
the country, than all the measures they have passed since
the Reform Bill—if we except the Emancipation and the
Poor-law Amendment Acts.

The House of Commons yesterday took into considera-
tion the amendments made by the Lords to the Irish Cor-
porations Bill, or rather the new Bill which, under an old
title, had been sent to them. Lord JOHN /I,USSELL intro-
duced the subject in a temperate and able speech, the
effect of which Sir ROBERT PEEL bent all his force in vain
to destroy. The Noble Lord properly pointed out the
contrast between the performances of the Tories and their
professions. They pretend to be anxious to conciliate
and satisfy the Irish ; they talk much of the sacrifices they
have made, and are willing to make ; they assert one
Session that the Municipal, Corporations arc the strong-
holds of the Estab:ished Church, and the next offer them

up ‘sith tears, as a sacrifice on the altar of peace ; but, in
fact, they pass or rather thrust a Bill through the House of
Lords, which perpetuates all the abuses'of these Corpo-
rations, and adds the insult of attempting to cheat the
people to the determination to oppress them. This is a
course of proceeding, as Lord JoHN RUSSELL said, which
is at " once illiberal and unwise." "It is showing neither
confidence nor generosity," and it has not succeeded, and
will not succeed.
The Tories wholly forget the relation in which they stand
and in which the Corporations stand, to the bulk
of the Irish. The Corporations are described by the
Tories as the citadels of the Church, and the Church
is an odious yoke on the neck of the people. The Tories
support the yoke, and are therefore considered, not as
parental legislators, but as enemies and tyrants by the
Irish—seeking to accomplish by cunning what they have
failed to achieve by violence. The Tories avow the cha-
racter. They insult, they threaten, they calumniate the
slaves. They have deprived themselves, by their language
and their conduct, of all claim to be considered as legis-
lating, on Irish questions, for the public good. They avow
a party object, and that object is to fix on the Irish a re-
' ligious yoke. All their measures are properly regarded by
the Irish with suspicion, as instruments for continuing the
oppression. Under such circumstances, it would have been
folly in the Ministers to receive and adopt the Tory Bill ;
and only barefaced impudence in the enemies of the Irish
could have led them to send such a Bill to the House
of Commons, in place of the one passed by that House.
If the House of Commons had accepted such a Bill its ef-
fect would have been to make the Irish more than ever
mistrustful of both Houses of Parliament.
At the beginning of his speech Lord JOHN RUSSELL
explained that 26 clauses of the Commons Bill had been
left out, and 92 new clauses added. Many of those suf-
fered to remain had been materially altered, and neither the
new matter nor the alterations had been considered by the
House of Lords. In fact there never was the least discus-
sion in the House of Peers on Lord LYNDHURST'S amend-
ments. They were introduced in Committee, and printed
and adopted on the report without ever having been even
publicly read. That they were privately read by the Lords,
who would have called " content" had there been any ques-
tion about them, we cannot believe. The whole Bill consists
of 166 folio pages. To read it merely, would require at

least six consecutive hours. The new matter consists of
ninety-two clauses, and to read and understand them in
all their bearings and relations to the rest of the Bill
would require at least the study of a week. Of all the
Peers how many would or did take that trouble ? Not half
a dozen we are sure ; we doubt if three did, or if more than
three ever read the Bill. But the unread Tory farrago,
as concocted by Lord L YNDHURST and Sir ROBERT gPEEL,
and put into shape by some nameless Bill-drawer, never
publicly discussed, the form of putting the question on
it having been gone through once only, was to be palmed
by the overwhelming power of the Tory Lords on the country
as a wise and provident law, amasterpice of legislation! That
has been prevented by the salutary check on Tory and
lordly insolence afforded by the House of Commons. It
would be too much to assert that all other laws are passed
through the House of Peers like Lord LYNDHURST'S
amendments to the Irish Corporation Bill, but if many of
them are, we need not wonder at our statute book being
encumbered with a greater mass of contradictory nonsense
than was ever before heaped together in any printed work.
Lord JOHN proposed to disagree to all the new clauses,
" craftily introduced," which go to maintain in the old qor-
porations powers and trusts not reserved by the English
Corporation Act. The Lords incorporated in this Bill a
Boundary Bill, which is strongly objected to in Ireland, as
partial ; rataining it however, Lord JoHN proposes to give
the Lord Lieutenant in Council, the power to modify the
boundaries. He proposes to restore the clause concerning
Sheriff's, as it stood in the Commons Bill. For thefran-
chise clause of the Lords, he proposes a new franchise
founded on the rated value, and which would make about
an eight pound house the criterion ; and he proposes
that the clauses which exclude small towns from hav-
ing Corporations shall be accepted, with a modification
applying the 10th of Gco. 4to those towns, if within
a twelvemonth they do not apply for Corporations. Three
divisions last night took place ; the first on Lord JOHN
RUSSELL'S proposition to give the Lord Lieutenants a
power to modify the boundaries, which was carried by only
8 ; the second, on the Noble Lord's proposition for the fran-
chise, which was carried by only 18 ; and the third, on re-
placing a clause which c6mpels collectors of rates to open ac-
counts with banks, so as to allow the rate-payers always an
opportunity of paying their rates, which was carried by
20. On all these points the Ministers were successful,
through their first majority was extremely narrow. The,
result, we presume, will be that the Lords will reject the
Commons' amendments, and the Corporation question will
lie over for another year, directing all the national agita-
tion which can be excited against the Church, instead of
dispersing it by local attractions and local interests over
the towns of Ireland. We have long considered the Tories
to be unwitting instruments in the hands of Providence for
utterly destroying the Church, and their conduct on the
Municipal Bill has confirmed our conviction.

We have on several occasions in this journal called the
public attention to the arrogant claims, amounting to down-
right Popery, of the Established Priesthood. At length
they are pushed so far that they base alarmed the niost
zealous partizans of the Church. In defence of the con-
duct of the Legislation, in granting assistance to May-
nooth, Lord Mofterrit was obliged to remind the House
of Commons, a few evenings ago, of the Popery of Oxford.
Frazer's Magazine, too, so zealous erewhile against the
voluntary principle, and in favour of the Establishment, has
this month found out that there is " treason in the Church."
The claims of the Oxford Doctors, and of the " Tracts for
the Times," it stigmatizes as Popery. But we cannot see
in what Mr. Fnoun's opinions substantially differ from
those of the Bishop of EXETER. For himself the
Bishop claims quite as complete a right to pronounce
the absolution of sinners—the Church itself claims
' it—as Mr. PROUD. The claim to an unbroken
apostolical succession was substantially put forth by
the Bishop of EXETER not many nights ago, when he placed
the authority of the Bishop's Courts above that of the law ;
and said, that if his apostolical power were invaded, he would
not obey the law. In fact the claims which, when nakedly
stated by Mr. FROUD,—who with his friends seem
like several German converts, to have a liking to
profess the Romanism the Church has adopted,—af-
, fronts the Reviewer, are the necessary consequen-
ces of having an Established Church. Why is it
that a Church is established ? Because it is the true
Church. There cannot be two true Churches, and thus
to establish a Church is to make the Priesthood of that
Established Church claim for themselves exclusively all the
powers, privileges, and rights, such, as being the sole inter-
preters of the will of GOD, which the Church or its founder
has always possessed. With an Established Church what is
called toleration, must, in the end, be impossible. What
the Reviewer finds fault with in the Oxford Doctors are
the necessary consequences of having an Established
Church ; and Sir ROBERT PEEL, and his political
party will soon have to choose between getting rid of the
Established Church, or going over to Popery and confes-
sing themselves the vassals of the Priesthood. We rejoice
to sea the " treason within the Church," because those who
now fancy they are contending in Parliament for a united
body, under one .name, will soon have to choose between
the traitors and their opponents. To which class the Irish
Priesthood belongs is not generally known ; but their anti-
pathy to the Romish Priests in their immediate neighbour-