The Sun.
London, England, 1836-10-17 00:00:00

Ireland to even a part of the ancient property of the
Church would give satisfaction to the Popish 'agita-
tors of Ireland ? How can any litinian„efeattire who
has eyes to seen and ears Bear; till rit}g t so
gross a fallaq a 016 pOsibility of satisfying these
people, while a shred or atom of the Protestant Esta-
blishment is left Far he is from us, indegd, to say
that Wit alp 8t itidegli it
were id the' "-1111114 tif,di3o; p'dr-
tide of atithdritY irid Vested by law iii the lirdte.qtant
Established dhnicii, gk'e sAtigt4tithj to these
people. din cot-Maier! 16; UHatt it'efo a l this .given
up to them the thanifestatiOn of their dissa'tiAttOon
would be even then more insolent and uidre cruel, more
full of danger td dig Otatiii Alfa id the Church,
than now it is. of all the impudent erfc/L-,' that
ever have been atteriipted to lie thrust upon incau-
tious heareisi sly that ins the roost gross which pre-
tends that the " tipptopridtion cisiise have
won the Irish agitators into " satisfaction" with a na-
tional est'ablishilient Of the Protestant religion in Ire-
land. They who put forward such a Oaten-ton' must
suppose (unless with them stupidity takes the place
of thought), that the persons they address are wholly
inattentive to the lessons of experience. How often
have measures been proposed which we were told would
" reconcile," and " conciliate," and " satisfy" the Irish
Roman Catholics ? When the penal laws were re-
moved, which removal left them full toleration in the
exercise of their religion, notwithstanding the political
dangers inseparable from it, then we were told that they
would be quite satisfied ; and we believe the greater
part of their Clergy of that day (a very different class
from the rank weeds which the Maynooth Sterqui-
linium has shot forth in such abundance), really were
satisfied. Then came the demand to vote for Mem-
bers of Parliament, the real point of the fatal wedge
which they have never since ceased to drive, with the
united forces of hatred and ambition—that, too, was
admitted, on the supposition that the " satisfaction" of
the Roman Catholics would be the result. After this
followed the opus magnum, the Catholic Emancipation
Act, which every one friendly to it said, and
many most sincerely believed, would not only give
the Irish Roman Catholic " satisfaction, ' but
would fill them with the most lively and long-
enduring sentiments of gratitude and affection
for the British Legislature and Government. Gra-
tissimus error. A most fatal delusion it was,
though not unworthy of a generous nation. In bitter
disappointment have they who most promoted it la-
mented over the insolent violation of every promise
which years of deceit had made them look upon as
though they were ascertained certainties. But even
since that great disappointment, which might well
have taught all men how utterly futile is the ex-
pectation of a Protestant State to conciliate the Irish
Roman Catholics, have they not had the Church
Temporalities Bill, the Suppression of Protestant
Bishoprics, the abrogation of parish cess, equivalent
to our Church rates, and Lord Stanley's Tithe
Bill ? And where is the " satisfaction," where the
" conciliation," for the sake of which these con-
cessions were made ? Do we not find—have we not
found for half a century—that everything which the
British Legislature has done to satisfy the Irish
Roman Catholics has been followed by a demand
for something more, and the existing dissatisfaction
is always more fierce and more insolent than that
which preceded it, so that, apparently, that which
is done to remove a sense of grievance does but
make that sense more keenly felt and more vio-
lently expressed? It is, then, an insult to our expe-
rience to tell us that if we had passed the appro-
priation clause we should have given satisfaction to the
Irish Roman Catholics. It is as much as to tell us
that we are such fools as to be capable of being de-
ceived for ever by a repetition of statements which we
have over and over again found to be fallacious. But,
if we had no experience at all upon the matter, the
pretence that the appropriation clause would have in
the least satisfied, or in the smallest degree allayed the
agitation of, the Irish Roman Catholics, would at this
day be a most stupid or a most false pretence. Will
the Ministerialists say that they have not read Mr.
O'Connell's letter to his constituents, which they were
themselves the first to publish in London, within the
last fortnight ; or, having read it, will they say that it
is not true, and that they know the intentions and
the sentiments of the Catholics of Ireland better
than he knows them ? And if they will not say so,
how monstrous the pretence that the appropriation
clause, or any other clause, of the proposed Irish
Tithe Bill would have satisfied the Irish Roman Ca-
tholics ! Mr. O'Connell has been very explicit on
the subject. He says he looked upon that Tithe Bill,
as upon every other Bill of concession which has been
passed, or proposed to be passed, with reference to
Ireland ; he looked upon it as an instalment, and had
he got it he would at once have gone on for the
rest. He says that he never will be satisfied (and he
is the leader of the political Roman Catholics of Ire-
land) while any such thing as tithes, or payment in
lieu of tithes, continues
,to be the lawful right of the
Protestant Clergy. He has been very candid upon
that subject, and has taken care to leave no room for
doubt as to his views. He admits that until the Pro-
testant Church is as fully divested of legal endowment
as the Roman Catholic Church in Ireland, he will not
be satisfied ; and there is no doubt much more behind,
which he does not admit. He says that he would have
been glad to have obtained the appropriation clause, but
why ? Not that it would have satisfiedffied him ; no such
thing : but because the principle of that clause being
conceded to him, he could proceed with much more
effect to the accomplishment of his ultimate ends.
Now we appeal to the common sense and impartial
justice of the public whether there can be imagined
more excessive stupidity, or more matchless effrontery,
than that of the Ministerialists—the perpetual parasites
of Mr. O'Connell—who notwithstanding these his
candid avowals, yet pretend to say that if the appro-
priation clause had passed it would have soothed and
satisfied the Irish, and caused to take place that mi-
racle, their obedience of the law ? Away with the
vain delusion=-the Romish Church in Ireland will be
satisfied with nothing but a reversal of that which was
done when the State religion was reformed. O'Con •
nell talks of repeal of the Union. What he wants,
and what those whose political Minister he is want, is
a repeal of the Reformation. For this cause
they whose principle it is to do evil that
good may come are content to convulse their
country with intestine strife ; to encourage and
train up in crime a passionate people, who
are swift to shed blood, and reckless as to conse-
quences—even those consequences which most imme-
diately concern themselves. For this cause they did
much when well nigh in despair, and will they not do
much more when flushed with hope, and, to all human
appearance, nearly within grasp of their object ? Let
them but obtain half as much in the next ten years as
they have done in the last, and the thing is done—the
Reformed Church indeed they cannot destroy, but
folly and wickedness may destroy its national esta-
blishment ; and upon those levers the Roman Catholic
agitators will press with all their strength. 'With
what satanic merriment they receive our concessions !
—Morning Post.'

We devote considerable space to the interesting pro-
ceedings at a public dinner given by the Conservatives
of Ripon to the representatives of that borough. Of
the Radical festivities at Cupar, in honour of the At-
torney-General ; and the Limerick display of Mr.
Spring Rice, the brief description we have given will
probably be enough for our readers. The description
of the latter exhibition we borrow from a Radical
weekly contemporary„ who laments that Lord Mel-
bourne has not given a hint to Mr. Spring Rice to re-
frain from spouting nonsense at public dinners. We
are of opinion undoubtedly that such a hint might be
useful to the Chancellor of the Exchequer and Sir G.
Grey, and to Mr. Charles Wood, and, we may now
add, to the Attorney-General, were it not that an ad-
monition against spouting nonsense, proceeding from
Lord Melbourne, after some of his Lordship's speeches
of last session, would have a good chance of being
laughed at by his voluble subs, as well as by every-
body else.—Morning Post.

WHAT'S IN A NAME ?—lt is somewhat singular
that the head keeper of an establishment for insane persons
at Hoxton is named Whippem. A lawyer in Lincoln's Inn-
fields rejoices in the name of Settle ; and the name of the
gaoler at Bow-street Office is Shackell.