The Sun.
London, England, 1836-04-25 00:00:00

SPIRAT OF THE PUBLIC JOURNALS.

It may be useful again to give the names of the
members of the Select Committee on the Carlow Elec-
tion, -who after a most patient and laborious investiga-
tion, not only acquitted Mr. O'Connell of perseslal
corruption, hut also unanimously report—
" That This money had been expended under the immediate
direction. of Mr. Vigors, and others connected with the
county of Carlow, in what may be called legal expenses,
or sr, unavoidable that your committee sec no reason to
tiou their legality, &e."
The following are the names of the Committee :
Mr. N. W. Ridley Colborne Mr. Ord (Newcastle)
Lord Francis Egerton Sir Charles Broke Vcre
Mr. Bannermann Mr. Warburton
Mr. Barncby Sir Eardley Wilmot
Sir Ronald Ferguson Mr. Henry George Ward
Sir John Y. Buller
Sir Frederick Pollock and Mr. Sergeant Wilde.
The unanimous decision of such a Committee ought
to have satisfied every reasonable and impartial man ;
and Lord John Russell will have the approbation of
far more than " three-fourths of the people of Eng-
land," and of Ireland and Scotland too, for his manly
resolve to maintain their verdict. The admirable
speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer will not
be lost upon the British public. He exposed to utter
scorn the cant of Sir James Graham and his hypocriti-
cal associates, who, shocked as they were "at such a
great mass of iniquity, and such an attack on the pri-
vileges of the House of Commons, would yet " have re-
commended that the House should adopt a mode by
which Parliament could give the go-by to the ques-
lion." This, most worthy Sir James, is your manner
of maintaining the honour of Parliament ; this your
wise plan for guiding public opinion, and doing jus-
tice to an accused individual, who has passed untainted
the severest ordeal which could be devised by perso-
nal malice and political hostility. The English pub-
lic are not so ignorant as not to see plainly what it really
is to which you would give the "go-by," nor will they
be so dishonest as to overlook such persecuting malig-
nity with the " go-by" so plausibly recommended by
you. In the manly tone of the Chancellor of the
Exchequer, they will also ask, " whether the motion
would ever have been heard of, if the question had not
affected the character of an individual of great political
importance at the present juncture ?" Our readers
will remember that " vehement Opposition cheering"
indicated the reply within the walls of the House of
Commons, that it would not. The people of the em-
pire, impelled by a hatred of persecution, will echo
back those cheers with a firmness and resolution fatal
to the last hopes of a malignant, anti-reform faction. We
tell Lord Stanley that he cannot inspire the people of
England with sentiments of hostility to Mr. O'Con-
nell similar to his own, and least of all by such a dis-
play as he made in the House of Commons on Thurs-
day and Friday. We never witness the miserable
failures of Lord Stanley without pain, and often
look back to the beginning of his career, when
we beheld the proud and vigorous efforts of this
high-born candidate for senatorial honours with
delight and hope. It was then our plea-
sure to agree in opinion with those who thought
they saw in Mr. Stanley great talentS and industry, as-
sociated with elevated rank, which in a consistent
course would obtain for him a distinguished name
among the patriots of England: What now is our
mortification to witness his devotion to the cause of a
defeated and despairing Tory faction, striving to wound
where they cannot conquer ! We will not waste words
on the miserable mover of this last attack on Mr.
O'Connell ; if the poor man is in the habit of consult-
ing " his conscience," as by his words he would seem
to say he is, we doubt not that the gentlemanly rebuke
of Mr. Ridley Colborne, " that the motion savoured of
persecution," will embitter his retirement with feelings
of compunction. If he can escape from unpleasant re-
flections by the aid of the flimsy party excuses made
by his friends, who uttered them only to break his fall ;
or if he can derive any satisfaction from the eulogies of
the apostate Times, he may well then be consigned to
the public contempt, of which he will be sure to be
the object. With respect to the Times journal itself, we
have over and over again remarked, what must be suffi-
ciently obvious to a great majority of its readers—it can-
not go on. without a victim. At one time, for
months, its daily task consisted in unmeasured and
ferocions attacks upon Lord Brougham ; all the claims
which the friends of that great man constantly and
justly urged in extenuation of his faults and mistakes,
weighed as nothing with the writers in the Times. He
bad, forsooth offended them, and for this offence,
never yet made known to an indignant public—for this
unknown offence against the Times, the former meri-
torious labours of Lord Brougham's life were over-
looked, he was branded as worse than useless, and the
vilest of the vile. Mr. O'Connell is now the constant
object of their daily, unrelenting, malignant hostility.
All his exertions for the Repeal of the Test and Cor-
poration Acts, Catholic Emancipation, and Reform of
the House of Commons—measures formerly supported
by the Times with a furious zeal—all the aid given to
these great measures now go for nothing with the
Times journal. Mr. O'Connell has dared its influence,
defied its malice, and we see, with an indignation we
cannot describe, that scarcely a day passes in which the
columns of the Times are not charged to loathing with
the most disgusting epithets directed against the Mem-
ber for Dublin. In the case of Mr. O'Connell we
hope and believe that the intemperate and virulent
hostility of the Times will defeat its own intentions,
as it did formerly in the case of Lord Brougham. Its
malice, joined to the congenial efforts of the Tory
faction, will tend to rouse the generous sentiments of
Englishmen, the nationality of the Irish, and the ar-
dour of the Scotch, to an effective consideration of
the means best adapted to resist and counteract the
persecution of Mr. O'Connell, and at the same time
to mark their opinion of his persecutors and their un-
worthy cause. The protracted efforts to unseat the
Member for Dublin obviously form part of the gene-
ral system, and clearly must be very expensive. This
cannot fail to be viewed as one of the most crafty of
the devices planned by Tory hatred. Why is the
Member for Dublin so much the object of Tory ha-
tred ? Why is his electioneering influence so dread-
ful to their party ? Obviously because by his powerful
aid the Reform cause has triumphed, and that of the
Tories been doomed to decay and dissolution. For
these reasons he will never be forgiven by the Tory
faction, nor ought he to be ever forgotten or neglected by
good reformers. It has come to our knowledge that
parties wealthy and highly respectable have long de-
sired to have some opportunity of publicly ma-
nifesting their approbation of Mr. O'Connell's public
services by some token of respect and acknowledgment.
We have before us the letter of " A Hater of Perse-
cution," who asks if the time is not come for the Re-
formers of England, Ireland, and Scotland to record
their verdict on the disgusting Raphael persecution
by some public expression of respect towards Mr.
O'Connell ? And if so, why some parties accustomed
to take a lead in public matters do not immediately call
a meeting to forward the object ? We recommend our
Correspondent himself to begin. Such an affair, to be
most effective and best adapted for good, should
originate with parties quite independent of Govern-
ment. All good Reformers will readily identify the
cause as their own, and none need entertain apprehen-
sions for the result. A public subscription to defray
Mr. O'Connell's legal expenses in the present contest
before a Committee of the House of Commons, and
to present him with a public testimony of respect, in
conseenence of the Raphael conspiracy, will not want
supporters if it is properly begun.—Morn. chronicle.
It will not have escaped the public observation, that
a most important notice was given by His Majesty's
Ministers on Friday evening, with reference to the Irish
Tithe Bill. Sit Robert Peel, in remarking that the
Bill was to be introduced on the following (this)
Monday, by the Noble Secretary for Ireland, seemed
to think it but just that the House should know before-
hand whether the measure then to be brought forward
" would involve any principle of appropriation, or any
principle likely to be contested." Lord Morpeth re-
plied, that the terms of his resolution would be " To
commute the composition of Tithes for a rent-charge
upon owners of property, and to make further provi-
sions for the better regulation of ecclesiastical clues and
revenues.' Sir R. Peel apprehended that there was
then nothing in the resolution which involved a con-
and Lord J. Russell declared that care
tested principle)
had been taken so to frame the resolution as not to use
any terms that could be objected to. It will proba-

bly be allowed on all hands that the convermtibll
we have now quoted deserves " iMportant."
The Around IASt year's Irish Tithe Bill, a
liberal and Welk-a- digested measure, brought in by Sid
Henty nardinge, was 'scornfully flung aid by M.
Daniel O'Connell and Lord %TAU kussell, was its not
containing a so-calle'd' Ippropriation” clause, or (con'=
sidering wfic* the objectors were) a clause for the
,Ana indefinite spoliation of the tteigy=zza pioVi;
son without which it WIS pitnotiniaddi by a '§dletriti
vote of that manyLcolotited ene
majority Uf the House of EFlti4tllbils, that' the Irish
tithe question ne.Vei Willa be rightly or satisfactorily
settled. tiht, we say, was the last year's vote. The
apptopriation clause was made the vital pfirttlple of
Whig policy for the adjustitetit of the Irish tithe
question. The pledge was regarded by the Conserva-
tive party as so irrevocable on the part of the Mel-
bourne Whigs, and the principle of it so noxious and
subversive of the temporal church of Ireland, that Sir
It. Peel and his colleagues, with a proud repugnance
to hold office whilst a tyrannical majority had the power
of forcing upon them a measure they so conscientiously
condemned, preferred the loss of place to that of cha-
racter, and gave in their resignations. The vote of the
House which produced this honourable resolution of
the Conservatives passed on the 2d of April. Towards
the end of June Lord Morpeth, the nominee of
O'Connell, as Sir H. Hardinge's successor, redeemed
the anti-Protestant engagement of the coalesced fac-
tions, and brought forward the Tithe Bill, not differ.,
ing materially from the Conservative measure, save in
somewhat weakening and disarranging in its most salu-

tary provisions, and in having -ingrafted, or rather
patched upon it, that irrelevant and uncongenial fungus,
the assertion of the spoliation principle. Sir Robert
Peel, with signal temper and good sense, proposed to
divide the Bill—to divide those enactments of it upon
the nature of which all parties were agreed, from those
which formed the topic of irreconcilable contention,
and to give the people of Ireland the benefit of such
improvements,being in themselves practical, immediate,
and unquestionable, as could be carried by common
consent through Parliament, leaving to the chances of
separate discussion those which were not only disput-
able, hut manifestly contingent and remote. Thus
the Conservatives offered to Ireland a commutation of
tithe for the principle of the measure, and a reduction
of almost 30 per cent. for the extent of it. But no ;
the spirit of faction had assumed " spoliation" for its
watchword. The end in view was not national
tranquillity, nor the relief of the poor tithe-payer ;
still less was it justice to the destitute clergy. It was
party triumph. It was exultation over the Conser-
vatives. It was vengeance upon the King. It was
a low-minded fraud, aggravated by an unmanly
outrage. The Whig-Radical measure, in its state of
original and unnatural complication, was sent up to the
House of Lords, which assembly realized Sir Robert
Peel's proposal, separated the metal from the dross,
passed the whole of the enactments for commuting
0
tithe, for relieving the occupier of the soil, for prevent-
ing collisions between the Protestant Clergy and the
Roman Catholic peasantry, and for reducing the total
amount of burden which fell upon the landlord. In
effect, so far as a solid and real reform of the tithe
system was concerned, Ireland obtained from the House
of Lords all that she had ever dreamed of asking, until
Lord Melbourne and his brethren conceived the hope
of making it subservient to a spiteful scheme for brow-
beating and mortifying his Majesty. But the House
of Commons deprived Ireland of the blessing which
the Lords had bestowed upon her. They refused to
pass the Act for commuting tithe, unless it should be
saddled with one for exposing the remnant of Church
property to perpetual disturbance, and subjecting it to a
system of arbitrary waste, under the dictatibn of those
who, in the face of the world, have declared that the
Protestant Church itself is a grievous nuisance, and
that its revenues ought to be alienated and transferred
for objects in which the Church has no direct con-
cern. Such was the conduct of the Melbourne Govern-
ment during the session of 1835 with regard to the
tithe question in Ireland. With great reason, there-
fore, did Sir Robert Peel put his interrogatory to the
Irish Minister, whether or not the same perverse and
unprincipled course was now about to be readopted.
If there be any meaning in words, or any safety in
relying on Whig professions, we may conclude from
the answers of Lord Morpeth and Lord J. Russell
that the appropriation clause will not constitute an in-
tegral feature of their approaching Bill. It may be
that some hypocritical subterfuge lies under these ap-
parently simple expressions : but we will wave that dis-
graceful hypothesis, and give them credit for honesty
and truth. It is needless to say how truly, then, we
rejoice at this essential reform in Lord Melbourne's
policy, or how cordially we congratulate every friend
to the secure settlement of property, to the interests
of civil liberty, and to the peace and final pros-
perity of Ireland, on this act of justice, however
tardy and reluctant, to the Reformed Church, and
of composure to the minds of the people. The
transfer of the obligation to meet the demands of
the tithe owner, from the ignorant, bigotted, and half-
starved peasant, to the landlord, who has hitherto been
equally regardless of the moral and social rights of the
occupier, and hostile to the legal ones of the established
clergy, will put things at once on their clear and
natural footing. The clergy will cease to be rob-
bed, and the poor to be harassed, and the country to
be racked by incessant agitation, for which the most
mischievous of all pretences has been furnished by a
resort to the excitement of religious animosity. What
the Melbourne Ministers may allege in vindication of
their consistency to their own allies and supporters, is
a question with which we have nothing to do, and
which we trust the nation generally will not make a
subject of reproach or ridicule against these gentle-
men, at least before the passing of the Tithe Bill. It '
is true that they turned up their noses at any measure
which should not contain the very stipulation they
now are satisfied to abandon. We do not affirm that
the resolution announced by Lord Morpeth is neces-
sarily the key to the character and provisions of the
Bill of which it is the official harbinger, and of
which it ought to intimate the outline ; but if it
is, and there are well-informed persons who think
so, then appropriation goes to the dogs, and the
great political principle of last Session has melted
with the snows of winter. But of that ? Let the
Whig rump be the (sinecure) guardian of its own
honour. Let it break its compact with the O'Con-
nell tail, and forfeit (what it never fully pos-
sessed) the respect and confidence of the thorough-
going Radical-Republican Revolutionists of England
—it is no affair of anybody but the Whigs and their
dependents. They will sooner or later be thrown back
for support upon the Conservatives, against whom they
have meanly combined, and whom as a party, rooted
in the British soil, they have exhausted their own
weakness in vain attempts to eradicate ; nor will a
long period elapse before we shall see most minor and
secondary demarcations of party politics resolve them-
selves into the one grand division, determined by the
nature of things and by their progress, between Con-
servatism tenacious of tried and existing good, and
Movement, or the appetite for chimeras. On one
side will be found property, which has much to lose
from violence—with education, which knows the ines-
timable value of tranquillity—and foresight, which
dreads convulsion : on the other, bold ignorance and
desperate fortune, which have all to hope through
change, and are conscious of nothing in guilt or
danger to deter them from producing it. To combi-
nations thus formed and thus directed we confidently
look, as among the obvious tendencies of the crisis
which now besets this realm, no less than of the tran-
sitions which she has undergone already. How such
a contest between such parties must inevitably end it
is not difficult for a reader of history to conjecture.
England is not a kingdom in which Jacquerie can ever
thrive.— Times.
The much vexed question of the Irish Church Es-
tablishment is again about to occupy the attention of
the British public. We are desirous of placing upon
its just grounds this important matter of national dis-
pute, and we shall do so by statements of indisputable
facts. It is our opinion that, since his Majesty's
Ministers have given themselves up to the furtherance
of Mr. O'Connell's views respecting Ireland, the Irish
Church question has become in the hands of the Go-
vernment Protestant Church persecution. It is our
opinion also, that Ministers have adopted this most fla.
gittous and deplorable policy from no convictions of

my ETXI I fIiVIALINT rt A V i

THE SUN, LONDON, MONDAY, APRIL 25, 1836.

their own, but as the price which must be paid to
Mr. O'Connell and the Irish priests for their political
support: We consider that the Protestant Church of
Oclarid Was abandoned to its Popish persecutors (call-
ing themselves " Itefbritiers,';) heeritiSe by itd less
a sacrifice could the present servants of the
Crown obtain that Parliamentary strength which
Was necessary to the rectiyeti Of office by meth
iil the eaily part tit last~ SeSsion. These opinions
are Mt Only deduced from a great variety of circum-
stances, bearing upon the subject, but from the direct
and distinct avowal of Mr. Slid, in his speech at
Thurles, iespecting the Compatt iiia.de by Mt, (nun-.
nell and his folloWers with the Melbourne and Russell
party, for the purpose of overturning Sir Robert Peel's
G.3verninent. Our present object, however, is not to
argue in support of our own opinions, but to lay such
filets, in their proper order, before our readers, as may
serve to guide to a safe and sound judgment upon the
question now again to be brought before Parliament,
and to a decision whether it be an honest effort to get
rid of a real grievance, or a bigoted conspiracy, with
hatred of Protestantism for its motive, and destruction
of the Protestant Establishment for its end. If that
Establishment be really a grievance, and the payment
of its revenues an intolerable burden upon the people
of Ireland now, the same thing must have been true at
any time for the last hundred years. Most unques-
tionably the exactions of the Protestant Clergy—by
which we mean merely the demands for what is
by law their own—have not been greater of late
years than they used to be ; nor have the Clergy been
of late less attentive either to the duties peculiarly
belonging to their sacred calling, or to the kindly cha-
rities, of which persons of all religious persuasions
have had the benefit. Now we know that, until the
latter part of the year 1830, there was no " resistance"
to tithes ; and the complaint of the Catholics, both
clergy and laity, previously to 1829, was not against
the payment of tithus, but against shutting out from
the enjoyment of political power, as Roman Catholics,
those who paid tithes to the Protestant Church. In
his evidence before the Commons' Committee, in 1825,
the Roman Catholic Bishop Doyle deposed that " the
Protestant Clergy certainly have a legal, just, and
good right to the property they hold." Before the
Lords' Committee, in the same year, he deposed that
though there was an " objection' to tithes under the
then existing circumstances of Ireland, it would be
greatly removed by admitting the Roman Catholic
laity to political power ; and in a letter to Lord Liver-
pool, in 1826, he said that so little was he disposed,
in the event of that question being settled, to inter-
fere with the Church Establishment, that he took the
liberty of suggesting how the collection of tithes might
be rendered less onerons and odious. Also Doctor
Murray, the present Roman Catholic Archbishop of
Dublin, stated in evidence, in 1825, that though the
burden of tithes was oppressive, it was not because it
was paid to the Protestant Clergy, but simply because
it was difficult to pay. He said that he did not think
the Roman Catholics would exert themselves more
strongly to get rid of the burden of tithes than
of any other tax ; and he maintained that there
was no wish on the part of the Roman Catholic
Clergy to " disturb the Protestant Establishment."
Can anything be more diametrically opposed to the
opinions now put forward by the Roman Catholics
than these statements, which undoubtedly had much
to do with forming that state of public opinion which
carried Catholic emancipation ? It is impossible to
show any thing in tithes now, which has changed
their character, and aggravated their oppression. That
political power, the attainment of which, it was said,
would tend to reconcile the people to tithes, has been
obtained, but the result has been the opposite of re-
conciliation. We, the Protestants have performed our
part—they, the Catholics, repay us with hate and per-
secution. The statement of Dr. Murray is particu-
larly important, for it shows that the objection to tithe,
on account of the purpose to which it is devoted, is a
pretence of very modern date. In 1825, it was merely
felt as a burden like any other payment out of the pro-
duce of the land ; but now we are told that another
sort of appropriation of it would reconcile the people
to the burden. The fact is, that political power was
not then obtained, and until it 'was obtained, it was
not politic to begin persecution of the Protestant
Church. In the year 1832, Bishop Doyle was again
examined before a Committee of the House of Lords
and he then avowed his opinion about the payment of
tithes in such very different terms from those he used in
1825, that he was reminded of what he had formerly said,
and asked to explain so remarkable a discrepancy. His
answer was, that the Catholics had been greatly disap-
pointed by not obtaining emancipation in 1825—that
since then a " new reformation' had been attempted,
and Brunswick Clubs established, and that, altogether,
feelings had been excited in the Roman Catholics
which they never would have felt, had the hopes
which they were led to entertain in 1825 been real-
ized. From this answer, it plainly appears that, even
upon the admission of Doctor Doyle, the resistance to
tithe was, and is, a measure of vengeance. It was not
on account of the grievance which pressed upon their
finances, but the hate which burned within their souls.
It was not any new exaction on the part of the Pro-
testant Clergy, but the " new reformation" which
lighted up the flame of resistance to the Establishment,
and which caused to go forth the war cry, delenda est
Ecclesia Anglicana. But not even the " new refor-
mation," nor the " Brunswick Clubs," could rouse the
Roman Catholic Clergy to an open expression of their
hate, while political power was yet to be obtained, by
making the British public believe there was no danger
to the Protestant Church in granting it. It was not
until August,lB3o, that, after a remarkable suspension
of agitation, " suddenly, and as if emanating from
some invisible authority," a general objection to tithes
arose, and resistance began. We recommend all who can
to read the striking acccount of this commencement of
the tithe rebellion from the evidence of Mr. O'Reilly,
quoted in "the Rev. M. O'Sulliva'n's address to the Pro-
testants of Great Britain," a pamphlet to which we
are indebted for most of the references in the preced-
ing remarks. The conclusion is perfectly irresistible,
that this resistance arose, not from any sense of griev-
ance in the demand of tithe, but from a religious and
political conspiracy against the Protestant Establish-
ment. This same conspiracy it is which is now
sought to be worked out in the British Honse of Com-
mons, the King's Ministers, and the men whose votes
they command, being the degraded instruments, in the
hands of Mr. O'Connell, for bringing the conspiracy
to a successful issue. It is no excusable delusion—it
is mere madness, or blind, stupid, servility, which in
the face of facts such as we have stated (and much
more might be brought forward), can support Mr.
O'Connell's policy, as tending to do justice and to re-
move oppression. The injustice and the oppression
are modern fictions. In 1825 Mr. O'Connell deposed,
before a Committee of the House of Commons, that
" the Catholic tithe-payer was not in general very
harshly dealt with, where the Clergyman had the tithes
himself ; but when they were in the hands of laymen,
and frequently persons of the same persuasion with him-
self; the tithe-payer was very badly dealt with." In 1830
a pastoral address, signed by 27 Roman Catholic Bi-
shops, was circulated in Ireland, in which the gratitude
of the Roman Catholic people is claimed for a Legis-
lature which had given them, without reserve, all the
privileges they desired. And yet now, we are to be
told by the organ of these same Roman Catholics, that
they are denied justice, until the revenues of the Pro-
testant Church are " appropriated" to secular pur-
poses I We cannot conceive how any British Member
this,
unless he be a mad-
ofmiianParliament
a slave.can avvssietnht
rteogatlrid to the question to beis
brought forward this evening, we learn from the re-
plies of Lord Morpeth and John Russell to Sir R.
Peel, on Friday night, that it will not be framed so as
to include the"appropriation
Principle ; but the
to hope n
that
the
Committeehis principle
existingeireums:aneeofthe coConnell alliance forbid
(s
Ministers'
which the framing of the Irish Tithe Bill will devolve.
The explanations which it is but reasonable to expect
t
will not be urged by
of the whole House, upon
i
the Government will afford this evening, as to their
future intentions upon this subject, are looked forward
to with great interest.—Morning Herald.
In the Parliamentary Paper containing the Orders
of the Day and Notices of Motion for the present
week in the House of Commons, we find, among the
Orders of the Day for Monday (this day), the follow-
ing announcement Tithes (Ireland), King's

Speech to be considered:" tip:A fhe 61thiedtdf this
Order of the Day a short conversation took plaCe Nd
Friday night, the report of which we shall presently
transcribe. We think it right, however, to premise
that, according to the practice and the law of Parlia-
ment; when any alteration of the law affecting the Es-
tablished Church is about to be proposed, it is neces-
Saip before a Bill to effect such a purpose can be in-
troduced, to obtain thd sanction of the House, in the
form of resolutions agreed to in a Committee of the
whole House, affirming the leading principles of the
measure in contemplation. Bearing the practice,
and the law of Parliament—as we have now
stated them—in our recollection, we could have no
doubt whatever that the language of Lord John Rus-
sell and Lord Morpeth, in the dialogue we are
about to repeat, amounted to a full and complete
abandonment and renunciation of the principle of the
appropriation of Church property to other than eccle-
siastical purposes, a principle, by the maintenance of
which, in confederacy with Mr. O'Connell and his
tail of Papists and Radicals, it will be recollected,
Lord John Russell, Lord Morpeth, and their col-
leagues, forced their way into place, in opposition alike to
the wishes of the Sovereig❑ and of the nation. We copy
the following from our own report of the proceedings
of the House of Commons on Friday, which coincides
in substance with the reports given by every one of our
morning Contemporaries :
‘‘ TITHES (IRELAND. )
" Sir R. PEEL—As the Noble Lord (Lord J. Russell had
intimated that the Noble Lord the Secretary for Ireland would
bring forward resolutions on the subject of Irish tithes on
Monday night, it would be a matter of general convenience to
know whether the resolutions which he was to move would
involve the principle of appropriation, or any question which
was likely to be contested. If they were merely matter of
form, then nothing more need be said, but if the resolutions
involved any contested principle they should have some pre-
vious intimation of what the resolutions were.—( Hear, hear.)
It was now Friday, and they might be called upon to con-
firm some important principle on Monday.
" Lord MORPETII would perhaps be able to satisfy the Right
Hon. Baronet, by reading his resolutions. They were to com-
mute tithes to a rent-charge, payable by the owners of land,
and to make further provision for the better regulation of eccle-
siastical duties and revenues.

" Lord J. RussELL—The object was not the affirmance of
any particular principle ; but if' there was anything objec-
tionable in the words used others could be framed to the same
effect.

" Sir R. PEEL did not think there was anything objection-
able in these resolutions. They contained no debateable prin-
ciple, but even in assenting to them it should not be supposed
that he adopted them."
We were well pleased to find, on reading this con-
versation, that his Majesty's Ministers had renounced
another of their errors, and began to cherish the hope
even that they were in a fair way of becoming good
subjects of the Crown, faithful sons of the Church,
discreet and honest statesmen, to whom, without much
either of danger or disgrace, the destinies of the coun-
try might be entrusted. We had already heard with
great satisfaction a considerable part of the Adminis-
tration recant the factious and foolish stuff they
used to talk on the subject of military punishment.
We had also heard, within a day or two, the
Ministerial Leader in the House of Commons do jus-
tice upon Mr. Daniel Whittle Harvey, whitewashed all
though the Hon. Member for Southwark had been by
a Whig and Radical Committee, appointed for that
special purpose by a Whig-Radical Administration.
We had witnessed this infliction of justice without per-
ceiving any other inducement or provocation to a chas-
tisement so well merited, but yet so unexpected, other
than the fact that Mr. Daniel Whittle Harvey had
presumed to talk about the Pension List, just as Lord
John Russell and his colleagues were in the constant
habit of talking so long as they had the misfortune to
remain out of office. We saw on the very night of
the above conversation a change greater even than
any we have yet mentioned. We witnessed the Mi-
nistry and its adherents, in their eagerness to come
round to the opinions and to imitate the conduct of
their political opponents, embrace sentiments and
pursue a course which the latter had never held,
but which party rancour had imputed to them, with
a falsehood so persevering that the slanderers had
taught themselves to believe their own calumny by
mere dint of repetition. We behold the Whig Mi-
nisters advocating the practice of seat-selling ;
maintaining that the sale and purchase of a seat
in the House of Commons is sanctified if the
price is to be employed in bribing tenants to vote
against their landlords, by paying their arrears of rent,
and insisting that there is nothing dishonourable or im-
proper in the attempt to patch up a quarrel between
disappointed traffickers in the representation of the peo-
ple by promise, whether it be merely a fraudulent pro-
mise, or merely a corrupt promise, or in whatever pro-
portion the qualities of fraud and corruption may be
combined in the promise, of one of the highest honours
which the Crown has to bestow. Having observed
these ohanges various, sudden, and violent of charac-
ter, policy, and principle, in his Majesty's Ministers,
we could not refuse to believe when they stated
as explicitly as we have seen that their resolutions
on the subject of the Irish Church did not in-
volve the appropriation principle, by means of which
they had contrived to get into office, or at fail
to infer that what was omitted in the resolu-
tions was equally to be omitted in the measure to be
founded upon them. The Ministerial papers of Satur-
day and yesterday, however, inform us that the descrip-
tion given by Lord John Russell and Lord Morpeth
on Friday, of the resolutions they mean to propose, to-
night to the House of Commons, has nothing to do
with the measure subsequently to be introduced in
virtue of those resolutions ; that the appropriation
principle, although omitted in the resolutions, is to be
included in the Bill ; that the preliminary discussion
of the subject in Committee is to be regarded as a mere
unmeaning form ; and that, in fine, the Church is to
stripped, by some manoeuvre or other which yet re-
mains unexplained, of that special protection which the
law and practice of Parliament have hitherto thrown
around her. What will be done or left undone, affirmed
or denied, attempted or renounced, by such Ministers
as the present, upon any subject, it is difficult to con-
jecture a day before the event. But this remark is pe-
culiarly applicable to the appropriation question, upon
which they have practised their sleight of hand with
the greatest success and advantage. It is the best pea
in their bag. On Friday night it was expected to be
under the thimble ; but, presto, it was gone. On
Monday it is not looked for ; but some of the confede-
rates of the jugglers wager it will be there ; and there
probably it will be. The game has been going on thus
for three years or thereabouts, which is somewhat of
the longest ; but so, it is plain enough, it will still go
on, until the impatient and disgusted spectators upset
the table and drive the impudent thimble-riggers from
the fair.—Morning Post.

Our Breconshire Correspondent says, that the de-
struction of sheep and lambs, on all the hilly farms is unabated ;
he mentions several farmers who have lost from 200 to 300
each. And he adds, that of the lambs not one in seven will
escape. There had been snow and sleet for five days succes-
sively, and it was still lying deep on the high grounds. Not
a grain of oats had been sown, and only part of a field here
and there ploughed. He states, that in the spring of 1786
(fifty years ago), there was a similar season, when the first
oats in his neighbourhood were sown on the 12th of April.
We are sorry to confirm the above report, from account received
from all the adjoining districts. Many thousand sheep have
perished in the upper parishes of the three counties which
meet at Ramny, and more than three-fourths of the mountain
lambs. Our correspondent says that he saw fourteen sheep
dead in one small field ; and the Coedcae, the Banwaun, and
the Waun, are strewed with them. The same season which
is destructive to sheep, kills the hares; and many of these are
also found dead.—Welshman.

A carpenter, named George Redford, had engaged
to go out in the Harmony, to Davis' Straits. During the
late few days in which that vessel was repairing the damage
she had received in a storm, Redford went upon a " spree"
and spent, as we are informed, the remainder of a sum of 5/.,
which he had received in advance, as outfit money, and when
the vessel was about to sail, on Tuesday last, he was not forth-
coming, but had, it appeared, left word that he would join the
ship in the Humber, off Paull. Whether he ever went to
Paull for that purpose, does not appear certain ; there appears
to have been no design of deserting the ship, as his clothes
and tools were all on board. The following morning he was
found quite dead, suspended to a tree at Aldborough, in Hol-
nerness, near the sea shore. He was about thirty-four years
of age, married, and has left a widow and five children.—
Hull Advertiser.

GERMAN PHILOSOPHERS.--_A recent traveller
speaking of the metaphysics of Kant, Wolf, Leibnitz, Fichte,
and Schelling, says, " they have filled Europe with their
works, and the madhouses with inmates."

LACE TRADE.—No improvement has taken place
in the lace trade since our last report. We hope this state of
the trade will not continue much longer, but that with warmer
and more settled weather it will revive.—Nottingham Herald.