The Sun.
London, England, 1838-08-04 00:00:00

LONDON :
SATURDAY EVENING, AUGUST 4, 1838.

The debate on the Irish Tithe Bill was animated last
night by a masterly speech from Lord BnouGnAm. We
are glad to see him taking up ground for attacking the Irish
Church, the most monstrous political iniquity that ever
existed in any country claiming the character of free. On
that point Lord BROUGHAM will be supported by
all the right thinking men of the Empire, and the
party of those who openly aim at its destruction, will soon
be the strongest, as they have now justice and right on
their side.

We must, however, state that the force of Lord MEL-
BOURNE'S observations, that this country could not have
done otherwise than establish the Protestant Church in
Ireland, having established that Church in England, cannot
be denied. She could not leave the PorE's supremacy to
be a part of the Constitution of Ireland. The one
Church then, was the necessary consequence of the
other, and all the mischief of misrule of which the
Irish so justly complain since the Reformation is to be
reckoned amongst the demerits of the Established Church
of England. There are some points, therefore, on which
we do not agree with Lord BROUGHAM, for he professes
himself favourable to an Established Church, while we
contend that with religion the State has nothing whatever
to do, that it lies wholly beyond the scope and object of
legislation, and that the lawgiver goes out of his duty
which is to provide for our earthly security and welfare,'
when he selects or prescribes a path by which, as he
says, his subjects can alone hope to ascend to heaven.
The worldly mischief inflicted on England and on Ireland
by an Established Church is, in our opinion, an unanswer-
able argument against continuing it.
Nor will it suffice to say that the Church should have
been reformed in time and adapted to the wants of the
nation. There never has been a time till now when it
could be reformed. The fact of establishing the Church
and making the Sovereign and all his courTllors,
swear to uphold it, gave it so much power in the
community that it never was practical to reduce
clther the Irish or the English Establishment.
The very attempt even to admit the Catholics to some civil
rights banished Lord GREY for ever from the Counci▪ ls of
GEORGE 111. and the REGENT ; and the attempt of Lord
MELBOURNE to appropriate a fraction of the revenue of
the Irish Church to the purposes of general education
has very nearly destroyed his Government, while it has
been quite impossible for him to carry even that poor ap-
proximation to justice into effect. Thus not only was the Este-
bliihment in Ireland the necessary consequence of the Esta-
blishment in England, but the Establishment here is
the cau.se why it has there been maintained unpruned
in all its rampant and offensive deformity. Experi▪
ence
as well as theory should have some influence over
the public on the question of Church Establishments ;
and lookin;r, to their effects in Italy, Spain, France,
Germany, England, and Ireland, we are constrained
to differ from LORD BROUGHAM on the question
of maintaining the connection between
,Church and State.
We mention this as a caution for ourselves, because we
must otherwise strongly recommend the Noble Lord's
speech to the approbation of the public.
In the Committee, Lord FITZGERALD prevailed on
the Lords, after a division, to leave out all the clauses
%%1141 allow the tithe-composition, under Lord STAN-
LEY'S Act, to be opened up. Those clauses were de-
fended in tae Commons by Irish Members, as absolutely
necessary, because the composition was in many Cases un-
just. The rejecting them will not, therefore, make the
Bill more palatable than it was to the Irish, and Lord
FurzGERALD has thrown another obstacle in the way of
settling the tithe question. With this exception the Bill
met their Lordships' approval, and stands for the third
reading on Monday. What an immense quantity of time
might the Legislature have to devote next year to need-
ful improvements in England were it this Session to settle
the questions of the Irish Tithe and Municipal Corporations.
however, despair of its success.

In his second speech last night, Lord MELBOURNE quoted,
in justification of his conduct in abandoning the appro-
priation clause, a somewhat remarkable saying of the Duke
of WELLINGTON. The Noble Duke said hedid not approve
of Municipal Corporations, that he thought they hid not
worked well in England, but he gave up his own opinion,
and consented to the Irish Bill in deference to the
opinion of others. Lord MELBOURNE said such was
the language of a statesman, and such were the princi-
ples on which persons, who had to conduct public
affairs, must necessarily act. This is precisely the lan-
guage and the doctrine we held towards the Ministers
on the subject of the Ballot ; and.. they would have
stood, we believe, much higher in the affections of their
supporters, and of the public at large, had they acted on
the principlo at, the beginning-, which they praise at the
end of the session. Bat the Duke of WELLINGTON and
the Tories conceded to opponents—Lord MELBOURNE and
the Whigs would yield nothing to friends. He in turn
yields to the Tories on the appropriation clause, adding an-
other proof, to the many previously extant, that nothing is
to be got from statesmen but by terrifying or conquering
them.

Ina brief tlebate on the Pension-list last night, in the
House of Commons, Mr. flustE stated that he had di-

tided again.t the CHANCELLOR of the ExcuEQuett in the
Select Committee, on continuing pensions to the sister of
a Peer, and to a lady whose husband had an income of
18,0001. a-year, and had bequeathed to her no less a sum
than Itoooo/. at his &nth. Mr. HARVEY also stated
that the CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER had always
voted in the majority in the Committee when a pen-
sion was to be maintained, and always in the mino-
rty when it iv,:s to be struck off. Mr. HARVEY
added that wl-an the Right Honourable Gentleman was