The Sun.
London, England, 1836-08-04 00:00:00

I was disappointed. The Honourable Member dealt
about his blows indiscriminately, caring not whom he
hurt, provided he satisfied himself that he alone of the
658 truly represented the wishes and the interests of
the empire. We must, however, in fairness state,
that though his vote swelled the majority, the major
part of his harangue tended—could his sayings produce
any effect in the House—to increase the minority. In
fact, he voted with the Reformers, and spoke for the
Tories ; so that Mr. Alexander Baring's spirit still
animates one Member of the House of Commons,
though the body corporate of that gentleman graces
the Opposition benches in the House of Lords. We
have, however, alluded to Mr. D. W. Harvey's ex-
hibition, not for the purpose of criticising his ora-
tion, but in order to call attention to a trait
of peculiar candour which it evinced. The Ho;
nourable Member, in the outpouring of his honest
indignation at the manner in which the Church
million was disbursed, assailed the Duke of
Devonshire, and the Earl of Essex, for having
touched a fund granted, as he was pleased to say, for
the sole benefit of the starving parsons. Mr. Caven-
dish, it is true, confuted this assertion ; but let that
pass. But why did Mr. D. W. Harvey harp exclu-
sively upon the two Whig Noblemen who touched,
between them, of the million but 3,5271., while he
omitted all allusion to the Marquis of Downshire, the
Marquis of Ormonde, the Earl of Donoughmore, the
Marquis of Westmeath, Lord de Vesci, Viscount
Ferrard, Baron Foster (the Viscount's relative), the
Lord Bishops of Ferns and Kildare, Sir Francis Holy-
oake Goodricke, the Earl of Norbury, and last and
least, Mr. Eneas M'Donnell—all Tories, all bitter
enemies of reform, and all shining out in the return
made upon Mr. D. W. Harvey's own motion ?
Some of these names interpose in the column
between the names of the two Whig Peers
upon whom the virtuous bile of the candid
Member for Southwark was so copiously vented,
and they " grabbed, " to borrow Mr. Daniel
Whittle Harvey's peculiar phraseology, much more
than the Whig Lords, one of whom "fingered"
(we still draw upon the Hon. Member's idiom) but
821., while the Tory Marquis of Downshire "grabbed"
2,6971. How, we repeat, did this remarkable omission
occur ? It could not surely have been the effect of
a design to annoy Whigs and to treat Tories with
delicate courtesy ? Still the fact is curious. But
there no room for impeachment of motive ; for Mr. D.
W. Harvey is an Hon. Member and a candid man,
averse to injure any but himself, it being notorious that
to his zeal for the interests of the country he has
made many and great sacrifices. We may observe, by
the bye, that Mr. Sheil did all that lie could, and more
than could have been expected of him, for the cause
of his country. Though the Hon. and Learned Gen-
tleman had paired off, and consequently was not at
liberty to vote, he quitted Ireland determined to aid
the cause by 'his presence and his eloquence.—Morn-
ing Chronicle.
Though concurring in the preliminary remark made
by almost every member who addressed the House in
the debate of Tuesday night—namely, that the sub-
ject of the Irish Church Bill was, in all its parts, com-
pletely exhausted by previous discussion—yet we sin-
cerely rejoice that the matter was again brought for-
ward before the close of the present session. As a
trial of numerical strength, it was highly gratifying to
the Conservative party—as a trial of intellectual
strength, still more so. Leaving Lord Morpeth, who
gave a feast of exultation for the " glorious 86," to
furnish forth a banquet of consolation for the miserable
" 29," we shall proceed to consider the most striking
features of the discussion of Tuesday night. The
leaders of the two adverse parties spoke first in the
debate. And what a contrast I The Noble Lord at
the head of the Treasury bench feeble, irresolute,
and glaringly unequal to the emergency ; the Right
Hon. Baronet at the head of the Opposition bold,
decisive, and gaining energy from the very difficulties
of his position. Lord John Russell told the House
that he should, were he to confine himself to strict
matter of. privilege, deem the bill one which did not
admit of alteration by the Lords. " But," simpered
the Noble Lord, " I pass by the matter of privilege,
in order to arrive at the merits of the question." Sir
Robert Peel was determined not to let the Whig-
Radical Leader off so easily. The Right Hon. Ba-
ronet pinned his opponent to the point. He insisted
that the. privileges of the House of Commons had
either been infringed, or that they had not. If they
had, it was the duty of the House to vindicate those
privileges ; if they had not, then any allusion of the
kind could only have been resorted to for the purpose
of entrapping inexperienced. Members, by mixing up
some indefinite notion of violated privilege with the
subject matter on which they were called on to de-
cide. Sir Robert Peel claimed the judgment of the
Chair as to whether the privileges of the House had
been violated or not. Lord John Russell rose, and
faltered forth an " explanation," as it is called by
courtesy, but it would not do. Sir Robert Peel, with
merciless perseverance, pressed for the decision of the
Chair ; and, knowing as we do the power of the
Right Hon. Gentleman who fills that high station, we
shall content ourselves with saying, that to our capa-
cities, at least, he was unintelligible, and that it ap-
peared to us that Sir Robert Peel came to the as-
sistance of the,Right Hon. Gentleman when, amidst
the cheers of the 'louse, he said that he might
" assume that the discussion was now disembarrassed
of the qnestion of privilege:" Never was there a
more flimsy contrivance than that of the Home Secre-
tary, when thus affecting to relinquish a point from pure
generosity and a disinclination to provoke angry
discussion ; nor was there ever a flimsy pretext more
utterly frustrated than was this by the vigorous grap-
pling, of Sir Robert Peel. If Lord John Russell
failed thus signally in his manoeuvre, he was not more
successful in his argumentation on the merits of the
question. Indeed, though we read his 'speech with
great attention, it did not appear to us that the real
merits of the question were touched upon till Sir Ro-
bert Peel addressed the House. Whether from his
association with the orators of the other side of the
Channel, or from whatever cause, the Noble Lord
seems of late to have imbibed the true spirit of Irish
eloquence. He favoured the House with a succession
of sounding words of but small significance, and he
appealed chiefly to the fears of the assembly, when
asking them to consider what effect the adoption of the
Lords' amendments would have on the state and pros-
pects of agitation in the sister kinadom? He gave it
as his opinion that agitation would go on increasing till
it was impossible to resist it ; and that, as Mr. Shiel
at a later stage of the debate more manfully de-
clared, the -Catholic millions would force the conces-
sion of what they (justly or not) believed to be their
rights. The Noble Lord instanced the cases of America
and of the Catholic question. We pass by the former,
because the latter is more immediately to the point, as
having direct reference to the Irish people, and as being
within the recollection of our readers. Can anything
be more puerile or preposterous than to attempt an
analogy between the concession of the Roman Catholic
claims in 1829, and the concession of a Church spolia-
tion now demanded in 1836 ? In 1829 millions of
Irish subjects, identified in religious belief with a large
number of the people of Great Britain, demanded
participation in the rights and privileges of British
citizenship, from which their religion, and their reli-
gion only, excluded them. The nobles of their per-
suasion, the prelates of their Church—the entire body,
lay and clerical, gave the most solemn assurances upon
this very point in particular, that they had no intention,
no desire, of interfering directly or indirectly, with the
temporalities of the Protestant Church. We were
told that, secure in the affection of a devoted popula-
tion, the Irish clergy especially were resolved to con-
tinue in the service of that Master whose kingdom is
not of this world. Moved less we believe by these
profuse asseverations than by their native generosity
and love of justice, the English people granted full and
free participation in the blessings of the Constitution to
the members of that persuasion which it had cost this
nation so many painful struggles to shake off. The
Roman Catholics then asked for civil and religious li-
berty, and it was granted to them ; and though the
virulent leaders of their party may now find it conve-
nient to forget the fact, we take leave to say that by
none was that enlightened measure more warmly ap-
proved than by ourselves, and, we will add, that by
none had it been more strenuously, or, as the Roman
Catholics at that time were pleased to say, more power-

fully advocated. Such was the concession then claimed '
and granted. What is it that is now claimed, and
which the English people justly refuse to grant ?
Why, as Sir James Graham forcibly said at the close
of his speech, we are called upon to " transfer from
the ministers of the Established Church and the Pro-
testant religion the lands which they now possess, and
to give them to the ministers of that
.religion which
our forefathers risked a revolution to overthrow, and
which in the field and on the scaffold they gloried in
renouncing." In short, we are, in the words of the
Right Hon. Baronet, called upon to concede not only
Protestant spoliation but Catholic endowment. And
will Lord John Russell pretend to say—will a far su-
perior man, the Member for Tipperary, be so infa-
tuated as to urge, that there is any analogy between
giving the Roman Catholics the enjoyment of religious
liberty, and consigning the Protestants of Ireland to
Popish domination? Admitting, as all must admit, the
absurdity of any such comparison, the passage quoted
by Lord John Russell from a speech of Lord
Brougham is wholly beside the question. Not so;
however, a passage quoted by Sir Robert Peel from
Lord Melbourne. Lord John Russell, among other
proofs of bewilderment, gave utterance to an opinion
that the Bill in question was one which would be-
nefit the Church—an opinion in which the Roman
Catholic Members warmly coincided. Sir Robert
Peel showed, by a quotation from a speech of Lord
Melbourne's, which we noticed yesterday, that this
measure, so considered by the Home Secretary, was by
the Prime Minister characterized as one which must
deal a heavy blow on Protestantism in Ireland, and
occasion shocks and convulsions dangerous not only
to the Established Church, but to the Constitution
itself. ' This is not the first time that we have had oc-
casion to remark that sort of discrepancy in the Minis-
terial speakers in the two Houses of Parliament, which
might render it doubtful whether they ever held a Ca-
binet Council together. Sir Robert Peel went care-
fully through the details of the proposed measure, and
demonstrated with the utmost fairness, that whatever
might be the opinion of Ministers and their supporters
on the ,subject of appropriation, there was still enough
of universally admitted good in the Bill, as returned
from the Lords, to call for its adoption, leaving the
appropriation question open for after consideration.
He therefore called upon the House to pass the Bill
as amended, and not to relinquish the practical good
which it was calculated to effect, for the shadow of
a surplus which they might never be able to realize.
This point was also ably urged by Sir James Graham
and Lord Stanley, but it was urged in vain, the Go-
vernment being determined to do good in their own
way—that is, with an accompaniment of evil, or not
at all. Mr. Hume had the amazing effrontery to state
that the Conservatives made of this a party question !
As Mr. Shaw incontrovertibly stated, the measure
had been originated and sustained by nothing but the
party-spirit of the Whig-Radical side of the House—
indeed, it formed the very cement of that incongruous
junction ; for while the Home Secretary and others
talked of it as a final adjustment, Mr. Hume and the
other Radicals designated it only as a first instalment.
Yet both parties, so opposite, were held together
by this unworthy bond for party purposes, and
for none other. It was this very question which
brought the Ministry into power, they being
pledged to its settlement ; and now, finding them-
selves unable to carry it, they not only refuse to
relinquish their power, but they deny to the Irish
people any amelioration of the tithe question till, by
carrying their appropriation clause, they give Messrs.
Hume, O'Connell, and others that insertion of the
point of the wedge by which they hope ultimately to
break up and destroy the Establishment in Ireland.
They will never be able to carry this appropriation
clause, and they know it ; yet, for purposes purely
factious, they refuse to pass a beneficial measure, in
the desperate hope that some chances of the political
game may turn up favourable to the only consideration
by which they are actuated—their retention of the
power and emoluments of place. Now, we ask, are
the affairs of this nation to be thus administered from
year to year? Is the time of the House of Commons,
so valuable to the country, to be wasted year after year
by the introduction of measures at an early period of
the session, which the Ministers well know can never
be carried through, and which we sincerely believe
would never be introduced at all but for the purpose of
killing time, and diverting the popular attention from
the inconsistency, tergiversation, and imbecility of an
incapable and rapacious faction ? The Ministers,
warned by those successive indications to which Sir
R. Peel so forcibly alluded, are not likely to afford an
opportunity of answering this question by the elective
voice of the empire. But we feel confident that every
vacancy, however occasioned, will be so filled up as to
force even upon the reluctant minds of the Whig-
Radicals the conviction, " that but little time remains
for them to have even the sorry grace of quitting their
position before the preparations are complete for their
unceremonious expulsion."—Times.
The decision of the House of Commons against the
settlement of the Irish tithe question is not more in-
consistent with the desire so often expressed by the
majority of that house, that the question should be
settled, than were the argurnents'used by Lord John
Russell, with the conclusion which he desired to be
drawn from them. He must have greatly relied upon
the blind prejudices of the people he addressed, when
he deemed it safe to make use of such arguments. The
description which even Lord John Russell gave of
the amendments which the Lords had made in the
Bill was enough to strike any reasonable man, having
a correct understanding of the nature of Church pro-
perty, with the justice and wisdom which the amend-
ments displayed. After a great many words about
" privilege," which led to nothing but the consump-
tion of so much time and breath as were expended in
uttering these words, Lord John came to the amend-
ment by which the Lords had increased the minimum
parochial revenue to 3001. a-year, and had provided
that where the revenues exceeded that sum in pa-
rishes of which the Protestant inhabitants were very
few, the surplus should be transferred to parishes
where the Protestant inhabitants are very nume-
rous. His Lordship fairly described these amend-
ments, and, in doing so, could not help making apparent
to all but the grossly prejudiced, the justice and good
sense which such a proposition bears with it irresistibly
in the contemplation of every candid mind. Let us
look for a moment soberly and calmly at the facts of
the case, such as we suppose they will be admitted to
be by all, but those who are devoted to the utmost ex-
tremes of irreligion and revolution. It is the duty of
all Christian Governments to provide for the religious
instruction of the people ; and though it is inconsistent
with the principles of toleration which belong to Pro-
testantism to force particular doctrines and discipline
on any men, yet our Government, being essentially and
peculiarly Protestant in its Constitution, cannot in rea-
son or consistency provide any other national religious
instruction than that of Protestantism. We have a
Protestant religious Establishment already endowed
with property which has belonged to the national
Church from time immemorial. It wants nothing from
the Government but protection in its legal rights ; nor
from the Legislature, except assistance to make such
new distribution of property as the changes of circum-
stances in particular localities may render expedient.
It is found that in certain parishes of Ireland the re-
venues of the Church are considerable, and the num-
ber of Protestants very small ; that in certain other
parishes the revenues are small, and the number of
Protestants large ;—does it then require any argument
to show the justice of supplying the wants of one loca-
lity from the superabundance of the other ? " Oh,
but," says Lord J. Russell, " It is unjust to make
the farmers and the impoverished peasantry' of the
Roman Catholic parishes in the south, pay for the
religious instruction of the Protestants of the north."
So it would be, we grant ; but the Bill which the
House of Commons has rejected did not propose to
do any thing of the kind. On the contrary, it proposed
to relieve the farmers and the impoverished peasantry
from the payment of tithes altogether, as Lord J. Rus-
sell right well knew, and to fix the payment upon the
landowners, who are for the most part Protestants. Be-
sides, even Radicals admit that the property of the
Church is a distinct property in the land, as valid as that
of the landowner. It ought to be taken out of the
produce of the land, even according to their doctrine,
and the only question is as to its application. But since
it is, as the majority of the House of Lords, and, we

believe, of the people of England hold, the inalienable
property of the National Church, what can be so rea-
sonable as that it should be transferred from one place,
where much is not required from the Church, to another,
where a great deal is required ? But another com-
plaint is, that the Bill actually left 300/. a year for the
support of the Established Church, in parishes where
there are scarcely any Protestants. Now if it be true
that the Government and the law ought to uphold a
National Church, particularly when that Church asks
no money out of the taxes, it is not to be done without
a place of worship and a clergyman ; and nothing but
base and-dishonest parsimony would fix the revenue of
a clergyman, educated, as happily the Clergy of our
Church must be, at less than 3001. a year. It is
nothing to the purpose to say that this is too much
for attending to the spiritual welfare of, perhaps, but
three Protestants. The clergyman will equally require
support, whether he instructs three or three hundred.
We must pay, and we do pay, as much for a mail
coach that carries only 50 letters, as one that carries
5,000. The payment is not for the service performed,
but for providing the means for performing the service.
And in the case of the mail coach, the payment comes
out of the public purse ; but the Church pays out of
its own purse. The real questions are, . first, whether
a Protestant Government can be justified in knocking
down parochial establishments of the Protestant
religion, which cost nothing to the national purse ?
and, secondly, if it cannot be justified in doing
so, whether it has reason, justice, or honesty on
its side, in compelling the Church to take from
a parochial clergyman so much of his income
as to reduce it below a decent moderate mainte-
nance—that is, 300/. a-year. It is indeed truly af-
firmed that many English clergymen have less than
this ; but what does that prove ? Many Irish pea-
sants have less food than English peasants—is that an
argument for reducing the scale of living in England ?
Certainly not, but it is an argument for endeavouring
to raise it in Ireland. In like manner, the revenues of
the Clergy in England, if different from the modest
3001. a-year in Ireland, the enormity of which startles
Lord John Russell, with his thousands taken out of
the public purse, it should be raised. The equality
ought not to be produced by allowing a Popish faction
to despoil the endowments of parishes for instruction
in the national religion, so as to reduce them below
3001. a-year As to the ". appropriation clause," Lord
John Russell had nothing to say for it, beyond an am-
plification of the assertion, that it was an essential
principle of the Bill for chanaine. Irish Tithes into a
rent-charge, to be paid by the Protestant Landlords,
and thus settling the disputes between the Protestant
clergy, and the Roman Catholic farmers and peasantry.
Such an assertion seems to be, on the face of it, sheer
nonsense, and we can make nothing else of it, though
it was received as sense by a majority of the House of
Commons.—Morning Herald.
The Whigs and self-styled Liberals have always
been the most inveterate enemies of the Press, and
have rarely neglected to avail themselves of any pre-
text or opportunity to harrass, endanger, and oppress
those by whom it is conducted. Of this disposition
a more striking example was never presented than
that which the present Ministers have just given to
the world in tacking to the Stamp Duties Reduction
Bill a clause, requiring that every person possessing a
proprietary interest in a newspaper shall be registered
at the Stamp Office, thus exposing all who devote
any portion of their capital to the establishment or
maintenance of a journal to vexations aod annoyances
which are entirely unknown in all whet: departments
of industry or enterprize, and holding them out to pub-
lic view as a suspected, if not a proscribed class.
This arbitrary . enactment was suggested, as our
readers know, by that liberal and sagacious Gen-
tleman, Mr. C. Buller—was eagerly adopted by
Ministers—and as eagerly ratified by the present en-
lightened and popular House of Commons. It is
truly fortunate for the liberty of the Press, however, as
it is for every other element and feature of national
freedom, that we have a House of Lords which does
not regard as a matter of absolute law or imperious
duty, that it should invariably or implicitly acquiesce
in the decisions of the Lower House of Parliament.
We have much satisfaction in stating that many Peers
(among whom we must mention with gratitude and
applause his Royal Highness the Duke of Cumber-
land) are now staying in town chiefly for the purpose-
of opposing a determined resistance to the gaggino.
clause (for such it really is) of the Ministerial
It is still more gratifying to add, that this generous,
noble, and patriotic opposition to Ministerial tyranny
is likely to prove completely successful.—Morn. Post.
It is not becoming in the victor to trample upon the
vanquished, nor is it always wise in this who antici-
pate a triumph to holloo before they are out of the
wood. These two sage maxims are of old standing.,
and it would have been well if our blustering and brag-
ging Tory cotemporaries had taken the latter proverb
to heart, and acted upon it, ere they predicted, as they
simultaneously did, that the Ministry would be left in
a minority upon the Irish Tithe Bill—that " the game
was up"—and that they would be obliged to resign.
How these predictions have been falsified our readers are
already aware. They have had the division which they
so clamorously called for—and they have it upon the
merits of the question, and not upon the question of
privilege—and what have they gained by it ? A defeat
—a glaring and shameful defeat—in a House consisting
of only 491 Members ! Had all the Members of the
House been present, as • we stated yesterday, the majo-
rity would have been much greater; for, independent
of Sir C. Cockerel], who was unfortunately shut out,
and who, if present, would have made the majority 30,
instead of 29, there were no fewer than eleven Mem-
hers in the Reform interest absent without pairing,
(Lord Surrey, General Evans, Mr. Ellice, Messrs.
Hatnsden, Ord, Wason, Barham, Beaumont, and Chet-
wynd, and Colonel Edwards, and Colonel Knox),
making the total majority 41, instead of 29 ! Yet the
Tory press would have the public to believe that the
House of Commons was inclined to truckle to the
Lords—to adopt its shameful interpolations and omis-
sions in the Bill in question—and that the country was
ripe for the return of a Conservative Government !
" But the gaMe is up. They may go on holding their
Cabinet Councils, and guzzling, with what appetite they
may, their Cabinet dinners ; they are as surely doomed as
wassailers in some city of the pest with the plague spot
rising in their front. We announced the malignant taint
in their society when all looked fresh an fair ; and now it
has spread and cankered is universally recognized and uni-
versally shunned. And we, who have fought the battle
of the English people, under all circumstances and at all
seasons, were accused by short-sighted poltroons and eager-
mouthed traitors of deserting the great cause of civil and
religious liberty, because we opposed these men—because
we looked askew at the toleration of a monk's cowl and
the freedom of a jacobin's cap—because, overtopping the
mists and heats of party,
We saw, as from a tower, the end of all ;'
and, foreseeing the ignoble tyranny impending over this
ancient and illustrious land, we summoned the English na-
tion to their old allegiance, gauged the depth of the national
heart, and struck th key-note of the national sympathy,
and called the people back to old English feelings, for the
sake of preserving old English freedom."
Heaven bless the mark ! The thunderer has missed
fire for once, and the " taker of cities" has been re-
duced to eat his own humble pie in his own dwelling
of bloated blackguardism, insensate fury, and false
prediction. But let us be as merciful as we mean to
be just. The victory is ours, and we rejoice that the
good cause has again triumphed ; but we shall not
taunt our adversaries upon the ignominious defeat
which they have received. Sufficient is it for us to
say, that in a House of Commons elected under Tory
influence, the Ministers who drove Sir Robert Peel
from office had the support of a majority of it ; and
that until our adversaries can double that majority,
they must, Willy or Hilly, even be content to leave the
loaves and fishes of office in the hands of abler, better,
and more principled men.—Morning Advertiser.

SHEFFIELD AND MIDLAND RAILWAY.--In
the late advertisements in our Paper, the deposit was by mis-
take stated to be 5/. instead of 2/. 103.

Miss Dalbiac, only daughter of Major-General Sir
C. Dalbiac, M. P., who it is rumoured will bestow her hand
on the young Duke of Roxburgh, as soon, if not before, his
Grace obtains his majority, is in her twentieth year. The
Duke is at present travelling in Belgium and Germany, with
his mother the Duchess, and his step-father, Colonel O'Reilly.
The Dukedom of Roxburgh, Marquisate of Beaumont and
Cessford, Earldom of Kelso, &c., being Scotch honours, his
Grace will not be entitled, on coming of age next year, to a
seat in the House of Peers.