The Sun.
London, England, 1836-02-29 00:00:00

intervention" interference with the affairs of Spain.
At once we affirm that we—no, thank God, not we—
but the Government have adopted a line wholly incon-
sistent with the national honour. In the first place,
when the " auxiliary force" was contemplated, did the
Government say boldly, " the Foreign Enlistment
Act shall be entirely repealed, and British subjects
left free to embrace foreign service as they please ?"

No ; they partially and for their own purposes repealed
that Act, and not satisfied with so repealing it, they
pursued a systematic course of deceit, which has natu-
rally resulted in their own discomfiture. Most cor-
dially concurring in the patriotic sympathy expressed
by Sir Robert Peel for our fellow-countrymen wherever
their martial energies may be called forth, we equally
coincide with the Right Hon. Baronet that the name
of the British nation and the honour of the British
character have been unnecessarily committed in this
struggle. We contend that from such a course suc-
cess can gain no glory, while defeat must entail in-
tolerable degradation. Should the Palmerston plot
prove triumphant, in what page in our history shall the
valour of England find a parallel? Should that plot fail,
vainly will our enemies seek to taunt us with a similar
instance of national shame. We have dared, endured,
nay oftentimes seemed to defy, fate itself, but never
have we skulked to triumph or slunk into dishonour.
It is idle to say that we, the English nation, are not
compromised by this course of policy. fn the eyes of
Europe we are so ; if we judge justly we are so in our
own. We will not insult our readers by any refutation
of the silly argument by which shallow politicians at-
tempt to connect the course of Mr. Canning's policy
iith their own. It has been well and truly urged, that
whatever objections might have been taken to the cha-
racter of that statesman, it was thoroughly and sincerely
English. And in no one act of his was this more evi-
dent than his decisive interference with the affairs of the
Peninsula. He, at that time the Foreign Minister
of England, enjoying rare distinction for qualities
which always must command it,--he presumed not
to insult the national understanding with the pre-
tence of " non-intervention;" but he declared in
the face of the country and of Europe that his pur-

pose was to plant on the Peninsula the standard of
British independence, and that where that standard
was planted, there foreign invasion should not come.
Whether agreeing with his views or not, every English-
man had the satisfaction of feeling that we stood before
the world the bold uncompromising supporters of the
honour of our country ; and remembering this, can we
suffer the names of Canning and of Palmerston to be
blended in the matter of our foreign policy ? Yet there
is some excuse for these attempts at alliance between
the irresolute living and the glorious dead : for how

else shall the Government be compensated for the ac-
tual contrasts of a Secretary at War disclaiming all
connexion and personal regard for the principal support
of the Administration, and still more singular, a Presi-
dent of the Board of Controul apologetically declaring
that circumstances had brought the Foreign Secretary
and himself to sit on the same benches, and that his
defence of that Foreign Secretary was dictated neither
by personal regard nor by political attachment. But
we must here be indebted to Mr. Brotherton for a sug-
gestion, and adjourn the consideration of the confusion
of Europe through " non-intervention" protocols and
Lord Palmerston.—Times.
Although the Bill for a Commutation of Tithes in
England has been read a second time in the House of
Commons, it is not, we believe, the understanding of
House itself that it is bound thereby, beyond this
broad principle—namely, that tithes ought to by!
commuted for a rent-charge upon the lands of the
kingdom. Of the Bill itself—that is to say, of the
mode in Which this commutation is to be effeted by
Parliament—no positive opinion has yet been ex- I
pressed, and for this plain reason, that the majority of
Members have not vet had time to study and to under-
stand the Bill. After a diligent perusal Of the Bill,-and
considerable inquiry among those whom we know to
have considered it with great' attention, we arc com-_
pelled to say that a measure of greater obscurity—one
of which the . practical meaning is more difficult to
' come at, was scarcely ever submitted to the Legisla-
ture. It is not too much to affirm that the House has
hitherto proceeded with the Bill in all but complete
ignorance of the way in which itovould work if passed
into a law ; and we believe the highest professiond
opinion to be, that were the Bill (in anything like its
present shape) made law, they whose business it would
be to execute it would necessarily commence and
carry on their proceedings in the dark, and would incur
a very perplexing responsibility by proceeding at all.
We need scarcely tell our readers, that a measure so
greatly and immediately important to all owners and
occupierg of land as the Tithe Commutation Bill has
received the anxious consideration of a body of man
who, under the present circumstances of the. agricul-
tural interest, are most keenly alive to anything which
may possibly hold out to them a prospect of relief.
Many sharp-minded men throughout the country, who
have more time for the consideration of this particular
measure than falls to the lot of Members of the House'
of Commons—oppressed as they are with the simul-
taneous consideration of many important measures—
many such men have been employed in a diligent in-
vestigation of the clauses of the Bill, and in an en-
deavour to apply them (so far as they can be under-
stood) to the particular circumstances in which they
themselves are placed. We believe that the result of
such investigations has not been in favour of the Bill.
They who have considered its practical bearings with
-the greatest attention are the least pleased with it.
We state this with great regret, because we believe it,
to be the sincere intention of the Government, and the
sincere wish of the public generally, to effect a com-
mutation of tithes upon a fair and satisfactory basis—,
upon principles which shall afford security and steadi-
ness to the revenues of the Church, while they relieve
the land from uncertain and often vexatious claims.
This is what the country wants, and what we have
no doubt the Government desires to accomplish ;
but it has not been fortunate in the mode of ac-
complishing the object, which is obscurely developed
in the Bill now before the House of Commons.
Mr. Pemberton, whose peculiar clearness of concep-
tion, and accuracy of analytical power is well known
to the public generally, as well as to the profession
which he belongs, says of the Bill that it proposes to
effect the commutation of tithes in three ways.
First, by voluntary agreement between the tithe-payer
and tithe-receiver ; secondly, by making 'a commuta-
tion agreed to by a certain portion of either binding
on the whole ; and thirdly, by giving to the tithe
Commissioners power to enforce a fair commutation
where the parties interested cannot agree. He adds,
that it is founded neither on the voluntary principle
nor on the principle of compulsion, but that it unites
the disadvantages of both without comprising the
advantages of either, and while he admits the great
desirableness of a commutation of tithes being effected,
he throws out very strong doubts whether such commu-
tation can be effected in the manner proposed by the Bill.
We believe that landholders and occupiers have the
same doubt, but before entering upon the consideration
of the practicability of doing what the Bill proposes to
do, they propound objections to the thing proposed to
be done as faulty in principle. It is objected to the
tithe system as it now exists, that it goes upon tire
unjust
portio princentothipel of m
capital akanidng the
labour
hecultivatorexpends
dpa in
suy
ponpo-
trh e
land, and not in proportion to the profit he derives
from the land. It is a tenth of the produce, and riot
a tenth of the profit arising from' the produce, to which
the tithe owner is by la:entitled. Now, by the pre-
sent Bill, the future rent charge in lieu of tithe, is to
be calculated upon what the value of the tithe has
been for the last seven years preceding the contract of
commutation; that is to say, a perpetual charge is to
be fixed upon the land founded upon a present income,
which income is itself confessedly based upon an erro-
neous principle. It is to make perpetual and unchang-
able that which, it is admitted, is now a grievance.
It is very important that this should be 'clearly un-
derstood. Let us, therefore, suppose two pieces of
land adjoining each other. One of them has been—.
for the last seven years—grossly neglected, and upon
the other much capital and skill have been expended.
The latter will, of course,, have been chargeable with
a very large amount of tithe—and the former
with very little, because the tithe is in proportion to
the produce. See, then, how the proposed new law
would operate, The average for the last seven years
is taken on both, and a perpetual charge of a large