The Sun.
London, England, 1836-07-23 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, SATURDAY, JULY 23, 18d6.

may be true that Ministers could not have given effect
to many of their measures—perhaps that they could
not have retained office—but for the support of Mr.
O'Connell ;" but it is alleged, on the other band, that
if Mr. O'Connell had not given his support to the
measures of the Ministry, he would have become ut-
terly insignificant and powerless. They, theref,re,
stood to one another in the mutual relation of toast and
butter, either of which things by itself is insipid and
unsatisfying, but together they make good provision.
Now, this mutual necessity for one another " may be"
true ; we have no doubt it is. But to account for a
thing is not to give a satisfactory reason for it. The
necessity which existed for Mr. O'Connell's union with
the Ministry resolves itself, in our opinion, into this—
that place, which they wanted at the time the alliance
was effected, could not be had nor held without him ;
nor could the peculiar kind of power which he desired,
namely, the mismanagement of Ireland according to his
views and interests, be effected without them. But the
Whigs greatly overrate themselves when they suppose
that Mr. O'Connell would have become wholly insig-
nificant and powerless if he had not been helping them.
Previously to the Session of 1835, Mr. O'Connell was
in opposition to the Melbourne Administration, yet lie
did not during that time suffer an eclipse—it only hap-
pened that the Melbourne Administration of that time
was dismissed ; and then it discovered that to be opposed
to Mr. O'Connell any longer would not be convenient.
With this circumstance in his memory, we are not
surprised that the Whig writer should get into a puzzle
about the source of Mr. O'Connell's power and influ-
ence, as he evidently does. In one place he affirms that
Mr. O'Connell's vitality as a powerful public man de-
pends on the food supplied by the excellent Ministerial
measures. They support him.; and he, with a perse-
vering gratitude, which he has not at all times and on
all occasions exhibited, never fails to support them in
return. But the same writer also affirms that the
Tories have made Mr. O'Connell what he is by identi-
fying him with measures which the English people ap-
prove, and by their continual abuse of him. What a
happy and fortunate man he is, to be upheld in his
lofty pre-eminence by both Whigs and Tories ; the
former by their good measures, which he has the glo-
rious privilege of supporting—the latter by their cen-
sures, which he has the no less glorious privilege of
enduring. How happens it that a writer who sees in
Mr. O'Connell such a peculiar felicity of fate should
yet exhibit such a palpable inclination to disown all
direct connection with him ? Upon this point he is
very solicitous. Mr. O'Connell's influence, he insists,
is not of a personal but of a representative character.
He is attended to because he represents the opinions
of such a great number of people, whose sentiments
ought to have considerable weight with the Govern-
ment. This plausibility is without a • particle of truth
or fairness in it. It will not bear examination. Who
makes what is called the opinion of the mass of the Irish
Catholics in political matters ? Is any Man so ignorant
as to suppose they have an opinion of their own, inde-
pendent of that which " agitators," lay and ecclesi-
astical, inculcate, and, if need be, force the
people to adopt ? Mr. O'Connell starts a poli-
tical scheme in London ; he sets the machinery of
agitation to work to spread it throughout Ireland ; he
succeeds in having it adopted by thousands, perhaps
millions, of desperate uncivilised creatures, who are
kept in that state that they may be the more conve-
nient tools of political leaders ; and when the scheme
or the demand comes back with that sort of popular
ratification which " agitation" has obtained for it, we
arc to be told, forsooth, that the Government must
receive it, not as Mr. O'Connell's scheme, but that of
the immense body of people whose opinions he repre-
sents 1 This is a paltry deception—a flimsy excuse,
invented for the occasion. Mr. O'Connell just as
much represented the opinion of the mass of the Irish
people when the Whigs were denouncing him from the
throne as a public enemy, and the curse of his country,
as he now represents it, when the 'Whigs admit his
delegated authority, and assault the established Pro-
testant institutions upon his dictation. He is the
same, but they have changed. The pretended disco-
very of his representative right to dictate to the Go-
vernment is not only a political weakness, unworthy of
Ministert, but a practical falsehood, unworthy of ho-
nest men. Another discovery has lately been, with
some industry, rather insinuated to the public
than openly proclaimed. It is, that Lord Mul-
grave (independently of Mr. O'Connell) has done
wonders towards conciliating the Irish, and causing them
to fall in love with the Melbourne Administration.
Poor Lord Mulgrave I The attempt to attribute any
serious political effect to his travelling exhibitions of
himself and his equipage is rather too ridiculous. The
Irish canaille, with all the shrewdness of savages, take
his Lordship's measure very accurately we doubt not.
They fool him to the top of his bent. In truth, Lord
Mulgrave is nothing but a gewgaw floating upon the
popular wave, and borne along for the present in safet),
because abandoned to the current. But let the slight-
est storm arise, and he would be instantly engulphed.
It is the utmost extremity of silliness to imagine that
such a man as he, has, or can have, any influence.
He is flattered, and fed, and addressed, as he goes
along, because in him they recognise, not the Lord-
Lieutenant
of the King, but the Lord-Deputy of Mr.
O'Connell and the Priests. This is so notorious that
we should not take the trouble of stating it, but for the
attempt to attribute to his influence that which the
grossest subserviency to the O'Connell influence has
basely purchased. But we have something better to do
than occupy ourselves or our readers with Lord
Mulgrave.

Nimirum sapere est abjcctis utile nugis
Et tempestivum pueris concedere ludum.
We must leave his Lordship to the criticistn of his
congenial panegyrist in the Globc.—Morning Post of
yesterday.
P-'

r►nce Gallitzin, belonging to the Russian Embassy
at Rome ; the Count de St. Germain, Peer of France, belong-
ing to the French Legation at Brussels; and Count Lozansky,
Chamberlain to the Emperor of Austria, has arrived at the
Hague.

Hops IN KENT.--In the neighbourhood and
within five miles of Maidstone the hops on the strong grounds
are growing rapidly ; but on poor lands the bine is very
weakly, and without some warm showers will not reach the
tops of the poles. In fact, the above remark may be applied
generally to West Kent. The hops generally in Lamberhurst
parish arc looking remarkably well, with the exception of some
of the young grounds. We have at present the prospect of a
good crop. At Ticehurst, Etchingham, Burwash, and Wad-
hurst, where the bine is healthy and strong, some improve-
ment is visible ; but in old and backward grounds they have
made no improvement, but rather to the contrary ; in some
grounds the mould has made its appearance, as well a the
fire-blast. On Thursday the annual meeting of hop-growers
took place at Lower Hardres, near Canterbury. The muster
was strong, several of the large planters of the neighbourhood
being present. The duty was laid at 250,0001., and an opi-
nion extensively prevailed that if the season continued equally
favourable as at the present time, the duty would exceed
300,0001.
POOR LAwsow.We copy the following paragraph
from a Brighton Paper, and do not of course identify ourselves
with all the sentiments it expresses :—" The order of the
Poor Law Commissioners, forbidding any out-door relief to
the families of able-bodied paupers, at Petwortb, has excited
great dissatisfaction in various parishes in this part of the
county—a feeling which is not confined to the poor, but ex-
tends equally among all classes. That a day labourer, with a
family of eight or ten children, which it is not possible be
can support by his own earnings, should have no other
alternative offered him than that of taking himself and
whole family into the workhouse, where the husband is
separated from the wife, and both from their children,
is held to be peculiarly severe. The Guardians of
several Unions have applied to the Poor Law Board for
permission to relieve the labourer in extreme cases, by taking
such a proportion of his children into the workhouse, as ac-
cording to the peculiar circumstances of each individual, they
may deem expedient. This request has been absolutely re-
fused. The answer is, that the whole family must go into
the workhouse, or no relief can be given to any part of
it. Thus the poor man's domestic comforts are to be for
ever broken up, and he is to be taken from his family, im-
prisoned for life, simply because he is poor; for it would be
idle to suppose that after his cottage has been once left,
his few goods sold, he can ever recover his former posi-
tion. It is also understood that the medical officers em-
ployed under the Poor Law Commissioners are not re-
quired to attend the wife or children of an able-bodied pau-
per, be the disease they are afflicted with ever so dangerous
or contagious. Even those who are most friendly to the new
Act, and would be most benefitted by the diminution of the
poor rates, are much dissati6ed by this mode of admini,stering
it, and are of opinion that considerable indulgence ought to be
shewn towards those who are already encumbered with large
families. At a meeting of the Guardians of the Petworth
Union, held on the 7th instant, it was unanimously resolved
that they will not be made the instruments of such a system ;
and a petition to the House of Commons, against it, from the
rate payers of that neighbourhood, has obtained a large num-
ber of signatures, and will be soon added to those on the same
subject, which already overload the table of that House."

IMPERI 4L PARLIAMENT.

ROUSE OF LORDS, JULY 22.

In the absence of the LORD CHANCELLOR, the Earl of
SHAFTESBURY took the Chair.
GREENWICH PIER BILL.

On the motion of the Earl of SHAFTESBURY, this
Bill was read a third time and passed.
BRIGHTON RAILROAD.

The Duke of RICHMOND presented a petition from
a gentleman of the name of Hope, the owner of large
landed property in the county of Surrey, against Cundy's
line of railroad.
EDINBURGH POOR-RATES.

The Noble DUKE then presented petitions from several
Guilds of the City of Edinburgh, in favour of this Bill ; also
petitions to the same effect from the Commissioners of the
Edinburgh Charities, from the Lord Provost, Magistrates,
and Town Council, from the Members of the College of
Justice, and a petition, very numerously and respectably
signed by the inhabitants of Edinburgh to the same effect.
IRISH CHURCH BILL.

Earl RIPON presented a petition from a gentleman
named Livingstone, relating to certain benefices in Ireland.
The petitioner stated that in the reign of James the First,
certain grants were given to the then Sir Patrick Barnewell
of various property, including a great number of advowsons,
in different parts of Ireland. The grant was stated to
have been made in consideration of the services he had
rendered. Sir Patrick Barnewell was a Roman Catholic,
and was the ancestor of the late Lord Kingsland. The
petitioner stated that a living had become vacant, and that
Lord Kingsland had presented an individual to that living.
The right of presentation was then denied by the Arch-
bishop of Dublin. Lord Kingsland was under the
necessity of appealing to the Court of Common Pleas
with a view to establish his right. The Court of
Common Pleas decided that the right of presentation was
in Lord Kingsland, in consequence of his having,
in compliance with two Acts of Parliament, conformed to
the Protestant religion. The gentleman whom Lord
Kingsiand bad presented had been inducted into the living,
and was the legal possessor of the right. Fifteen or sixteen
livings were in the same situation, and were sought by the
Irish Church Bill to be vested in the Crown. The petitioner
prayed the House would not pass the Irish Church Bill
without giving him adequate compensation for the injury he
would sustain through it, and prayed that he might be
heard by counsel against it. He (Lord Ripon) thought the
petition one that well deserved the attention of the House.
DUBLIN AND DROGHEDA RAILWAY.
_ _ _

•
The Marquis of DOWNSHIRE presented a petition in
favour of the Dublin and Drogheda Railway.
EDINBURGH POOR RATES.

Lord HADDINGTON presented petitions from the
Members of the College of Justice and two other places,
against the Edinburgh Poor Rates' Bill. As the second
reading of the Bill was fixed for that evening, he should feel
it his duty to oppose it.
GRAND JURIES (IRELAND.)
The Earl of CALEDON presented a petition from the
Grand Jury of the county of Tyrone, praying that the Grand
Jury (Ireland) Bill might be postponed till next Session.
There were not less than 174 enactments in that Bill, and
they were now called upon at that late period of the Session
to go into it.
Viscount DUNCANNON made a few observations in
a low tone in support of the Bill.
The Marquis of WESTMEATH said that the Grand
Juries ought not to be entrusted with so large a sum of
money as was at present required for county purposes.
He should feel it his duty to support the postponement.
The Marquis of DO WNSHIRE complained of the
inadequate compensation allowed to the County Surveyors,
who were generally eminent engineers ; and he thought
some alteration might be judiciously made in that respect.
He considered it advisable to postpone the measure to an-
other session.
The Marquis of LONDONDERRY would also sup-
port the postponement of the Bill.
The Earl of ABERDEEN presented a petition against
the Scottish Universities Bill.
EDUCATION.—IRELAND.
The Bishop of EXETER presented a petition from the
Clergy of the Archdeaconry of Wells, praying for protec-
tion for the Irish Church. While he was on his legs he
hoped the House would permit him for a moment
to allude to a personal matter connected with the
last Report from the Commissioners of Education in
Ireland. tie deeply lamented that that Report had
been brought forward at so late a period of the
Session, as prevented him from renewing his motion upon
the subject. However, after such a Report, he was cer-
tain to obtain the support of the Commissioners, and that
when he renewed his motion at the earliest period next Ses-
sion, hewould have the unanimous support of their Lordships,
in order to have a full inquiry into the allegations of
the petitions he had presented, and of the charges he
had brought forward.
Viscount MELBOURNE wished to suggest to the
Rev. Prelate that the former charge was made up of a
vast number of minute facts, which it was almost impos-
sible to answer. It would be more convenient and sa-
tisfactory if the Rev. Prelate would furnish the main
facts upon which he grounded his motion—the Commis-
sioners would be better prepared then to answer the charges.
The Bishop of EXETER had already put the House in
possession of a general view of what he would maintain be-
fore a Committee. He, however, would most willingly
give the Commissioners a statement of his charges, but
would not consider himself precluded from going into cases
which might arise in the meantime, or which might be laid
before him during the investigation. He would, so far as
he was able, give the Commissioners an opportunity
of investigating every case, to which he would call the
attention of a Committee.
The Duke of WELLINGTON thought the proposi-
tion of the Noble Viscount would be adopting a new
rule in that House. When a Noble Lord moved for an
enquiry before a Committee, he did it upon his own credit,
and it was not usual to come forward in the first instance
with written statements of what the facts were on which
the Noble Lord intended to found his statement before he
made his motion. If the Noble Lord brought forward any
facts which he could not prove, he would be highly to
blame, and he would be responsible for it. He thought,
therefore, the proposition of the Noble Viscount ought not
to be adopted.
Viscount MELBOURNE said that he did not wish to
lay down any new rule, or attempt to fetter free discussion ;
but he only stated that in this particular case, where there
were very minute facts, it was impossible to have any an-
swer at the present moment. He therefore put it to the
Right Rev. Prelate, whether it would not produce a full
and fair inquiry, if he were to state the facts on which he
made his motion.
Lord PLUNKET thought that before accusations were
brought against men like the Commissioners of Education,
who performed their duty without fee or reward, some op-
portunity should be afforded them to answer them. He
thought, therefore, it would have been more discreet in the
Right Rev. Prelate, as well as more consistent with cbris-
tian charity, if the Right Rev. Prelate had made softie in-
quiries into the accuracy of the charges, many of them of a
similar description, before he had submitted them to the
consideration of the House.—(Hear.) If the Right Rev.
Prelate did not like to communicate with the Catholic
Archbishop of Dublin, he might with the Protestant Arch-
bishop. The Right Rev. Prolate seemed to think that the
report bore him out in his statement.
The Marquis of WESTMEATH—WiII the Noble and
Learned Lord state who he means by the Roman Catholic
Archbishop of Dublin ?—(Hear, hear.)
Lord PLUNKET—Probably it would have been more
regular in me to have said the Titular Catholic Arch-
bishop.—(Hear, hear.)
The Bishop of EXETER complained that the Noble Lord
had misrepresented him, as he had been frequently before
misrepresented in that House. He did not say what
the Learned and Noble Lord had said for him.
He did not say that his confidence in the truth of the
statements which he had made in that House had been
strengthened by the report that had been laid on their
Lordships' table--he had said nothing of increased
or diminished confidence ; all be said was, that he should
feel it his duty to himself and to the Church, and the peo-
ple of Ireland, to pursue this inquiry. The Noble
and Learned Lord had passed a strong censure upon him
for some statements that were attributed to him.
He asked the Noble and Learned Lord by what right he
had made such statements ? He asked him, as the First
Equity Judge in Ireland, whether it was consistent with law
or equity, or justice, or any of those principles which
actuate men in that high station, when he told the Noble
and Learned Lord that he intended to pursue this inquiry—
an inquiry which he intended to ask for, and which he
hoped would be instituted—to anticipate such an inquiry by
assertions of this kind. Such a proceeding was utterly
unexampled.

Lord PLUNKET felt he had an undoubted right to
give an opinion, and it was nothing more, on a pamphlet,
which contained a speech made by the Right Rev. Prelate
on submitting the motion, which was ultimately withdrawn,
in which he brought forwards those facts to which he had
already alluded. The Right Rev. Prelate had reiterated
these charges in the pamphlet—they had been given to the
public in that shape, and he (Lord Plunket) had a right
to express an opinion upon them. The Right Rev. Pre-
late had given notice of an intention of renewing• his mo-
tion early the next Session of Parliament ; but he (Lord
Plunket) thought that no Committee would be conceded.
He regretted that he had misconceived what had fallen
from the Right Rev. Prelate as to the Report confirming
his statement. He had read the pamphlet through, and
he had also read the Report through, and therefore he did
feel that he was capable of giving his opinion upon the sub-
ject. The Report he thought completely and satisfactorily

The Order of the Day for the second reading of the
Church of Ireland Bill having been read,
Viscount ME LBOURNErose and spoke to the follow-
ing effect :—My Lords, notwithstanding the great impor-
tance of this Bill, and the great interest it has excited and
continues to excite throughout the whole empire, and more
particularly in those parts of the country which it imme-
diately affects ; notwithstanding the great consequences
which may result from it, and which have heretofore
resulted from the discussion of this question ; notwith-
standing the argument of the necessity there is, arising
from this state of the country, that your Lordships
should come to some settlement of this subject,—l be-
lieve your Lordships will think that there are many cir-
cumstances on the present occasion, in moving the second
reading of this Bill, to relieve me from the necessity of
going into any great length of discussion, or of entering
into any particular examination of the general arguments
of the question. In the first place, this is, I believe, the
third Bill which has been presented to your Lordships to
effect this extremely desirable object. The question has
been amply discussed in your Lordships' House ; it has
repeatedly, night after night, been discussed in the other
House of Parliament, and it has formed the topic of re-
peated debate out of doors. In addition to these fre-
quent discussions I have also to urge, as an excuse for not
not intruding long on your Lordships' patience on the
present occasion, that with respect to the general princi-
ples of this Bill, or at least the greater part of them,
there is no material difference of opinion either in your
Lordships' House, or indeed any where else.—(Hear,
hear.) Those general principles have been admitted by
both the present and the former Governments ; they have
been sanctioned by votes both"of your Lordships' House
and of the other House of Parliament ; therefore I do
not, I say, think it necessary to delay your Lordships
by going into any general discussion of
,the subject.
Under these circumstances, I shall certainly not disturb
any of those matters which have produced warmth—
which have excited heated debate and dispute in this
House on former occasions—(Hear, hear)—but I shall
confine myself, as far as I can, to a statement of the pro-
visions of the Bill, without going into the details of it ;
and I shall do so the more readily, because on former occa-
sions I have generally been accused of not speaking at all
on that part of the subject. The objects of this Bill are
fourfold. The first object is to establish a rent charge,
payable by the landlord in lieu of tithes, now payable by
the occupier of the land. Your Lordships will probably
not think it necessary for me to state tHe reason for this
change.—(Hear, hear.) The second object is, the re-dis-
tribution of the benefices of Ireland. The third object is
the future regulation of the incomes of the incumbents ;
and the fourth object is the payment of all that may re-
main, after the other objects have been attained, into the
consolidated fund, to enable that fund to meet the charge
on it of 50,0001. a-year, for the moral and religious edu-
cation of the people of Ireland. The first clause in the
Bill saves the right of all tithe compositions which have
already occurred, and it regulates the payment which may
hereafter accrue. The second clause relates to those who
have received any relief under the Million Act, and enables
the Treasury to repay any money to those who have already
paid any of the advances they have received from the million
fund. The Bill then. proceeds to charge the land in lieu
of tithe with a permanent rent-charge of 701. for every
100/. to he paid to the tithe-owner, whether clerical or lay.
I am perfectly aware that this is a larger defalcation from
the incomes of the clergy than was proposed on a former
occasion. Ido not think it necessary to go through the
detailed provisions of the former Bills which have been
proposed by other Governments, but I admit that this un-
doubtedly is a laisser defalcation frcim the incomes of the
clergy than it was formerly proposed to make. My Lords,
I can only say with respect to this, what must be per-
fectly evident to your Lordships, namely, that the longer
you proceed in the present course, the longer the present
state of affairs continues in Ireland, the longer the present
state of disturbance and resistance continues, the more
difficult the question becomes of settlement.—(Cries of
" Hear.") Your Lordships are aware that there is in re-
sistance a disposition to permanency which it is very un-
wise to encourage or to allow to remain—(Cheers) :
because there are always persons enough who find their
advantage in it, and who are unwilling, and to whose in-
terest it is repugnant, that such a state of things should
not be permanent.—(Hear, hear.) I have only further to
say on this subject, that if 3ou take into consideration the
great object of this Bill, that object being the settlement,
of this question, it is hardly worth while to consider
whether the amount of income shall he two or three per
cent. more or less.—(Hear, hear.) That the settlement
of this question is worth some sacrifice is admitted on all
sides, and I submit that your Lordships should not lose
the present opportunity of effecting a determination of
that state of things which, whatever opinion you may
have with respect to the commencement of it, the con-
tinuance of it all must in the highest degree deplore.—
(Hear.) It is proposed that the rent charge be collected
by the Commissioners of Woods and Forests for the first
seven years, and after that as Parliament shall determine.
A great deal of objection to such an arrangement was made
last year by, I believe, the Noble Duk and the Noble
Baron opposite, who thought that it would have the effect
of making the clergy dependent stipendiaries under the
control of the State ; but in my opinion the advantage they
would derive from the powers of the Crown being exercised
in collecting their revenues, and the consequent certainty
of collection, would amply compensate them for the slight
direliction of principle which would be involved. Many of
your Lordships may have no particular experience on this
subject ; but I can assure them that there is no comparison
to he made between an income paid by the State and one
paid in any other way, as respects the punctuality of the
payment and the certainty of the amount.—(Laughter.)
I must say I do not consider the arrangement an unjust one
for the clergy, seeing that it affords them that security. Here
follows a provision that the rent-charges are to be paid in the
same manner as was provided in the former Bill. There are
to be certificates from the Commissioners of Land Reve-
nue, who are to pay them, subject to the same conditions
as are in the former Bill. We then come to certain clauses
which allow the re-opening of the compositions. They
are clauses to which great objection has always been