The Sun.
London, England, 1838-05-16 00:00:00

LONDON :
WEDNESDAY EVENING, MAY 18, 1838.

The debate was opened by Mr. LITTON, who had the im-
pertinence to tell the Ministers that " they would have to an-
swcr to the yeomanry and gentry of England for carrying a
question relating, to the Church Establishment, by a majority
made up of such materials." Mr. LITTON does not admit,
therefore, that the vote of one Member of the House and of
one elector is as good as the vote of another; but he insists
that the yeomen and gentry of England—those who desire to
starve the people—so far as that is consistent with their advan-
tage, should weigh double on all questions. Such imperti-
nence becomes a Turkish Pacha amongst Greek slaves, but is
wholly misplaced in the English House of Commons. Mr. LAS-
CFLLF.S, Mr. J. YOUNG, Viscount SANDON, Lord TEIGNMOUTII,
and Mr. SHAW, made a series of imbecile and furious speeches,
characteristic of their faction, to support Sir THOMAS ACLAND.
Mr. REDINGTON, Mr. TOWMLEY, and MT. BENETT spoke
against rescinding the resolution. Mr. WARD made a spirited
speech exposing the tergiversation of Sir EARDLEY WILMOT,
and proving that the most pious of the Tories arc as false and
hypocritical as they are intriguing and ambitious. The Chro-
nicle ascribes an excellent speech to Mr. BELLEW, which the
Herald asserts the House would not hear, because we presume
the Tories disliked the useful facts and terse arguments with
which Mr. I3er.Lnw defended his country, and assailed the
Irish Church. Mr. O'Comxism, properly said that the whole
question in dispute is how Ireland is to be goversed, and he
protested against once more submitting to the outrageous
tyranny of the Tories. Sir ROBERT PEEL made a
long speech, which may be as surpassingly eloquent
as the Herald describes it, but it wanted efficacy. It
got no votes. The public will echo the mocking laugh of
the House of Commons when this plausible speaker referred
with disapprobation to "engendering bitterness in Ireland."
Why, his whole career and the whole career of his party has
been one long effort—happily not always successful—to foster
the bitterness of religious hate and of insulting domination in
that land of suffering. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER
wound up the debate, and demolished the only pretext on
which the Tories had defended their motion. They could
not, forsooth, understand whether the appropriation clause
was carried into effect by the Minister's Tithe reso-
lution or not—and, therefore, they had no alternative
but to elicit the opinion of the present Parliament before
discussing those resolutions. But the CHANCELLOR of
the EXCHEQUER—avowing, we are sorry to say, that Minis-
ters considered the resolutions as giving up the appropriation
clause—said, why did not the Tories ask what was the inten-
tion of Ministers? No, they preferred an attack on a Church
question, on a sort of " No Popery" cry to turn out the Minis-
ters ; and they were properly defeated.
What have the Tories gained by their factious proceeding ?
If we are to believe the Times, the Herald, and the Post,
the Tories are the most sagacious statesmen in existence, and
their leader a very miracle of sagacity. Well, the Ministers,
wishing to settle the tithe question for Ireland, and hoping to
gain the promised concurrence of the Tories, proposed a plan in
which, to the mortification of some of their adherents, they
had silently given up the appropriation clause. The resolu_
tions enforcing that clause having been passed in a Par-
liament which no longer exists, were no longer bind- .