The Sun.
London, England, 1836-07-28 00:00:00

SPIRIT OF Tall: JOURNALS.

A Correspondent asks what is the use 6f t'ericling
the Mutilated itisi) Tithe Bill a third time to-night in
the Itorise Of torils ? earmot answer the ques-
tidn t for; iii ddr dpiiiidti, there is lid d further
wasting time With d iileAstire vbhich the Tory tofch
have taken care shall never become law. iitit perhaps
Baton Lyndhurst, or some of his friends at the tdi'v
side of the Press, nidy be able to give a satisfactory
answer to ddr Correspondent's quety? At all events
we ii,Letild feedtririlerid fili dlililictitidri td that honest
quarter for, though truth is thiL 16 lie idoketi rd!.
there, there can be no harm in knowing even the fell tiz
dulent pretexts or hypocritical purposes for which the
Lordly Destructives intend to go through the last scene
of their cruel and disgusting mockery this evening. Of
this, however, the public may be perfectly assured, the
Bill as emasculated by the mischief-makers in the
Hereditary Chamber, never will receive the approba-
tion of the House of Commons or the assent of the
King. In its original form it was a barely tolerable
measure. The approbation clause alone gave it
vitality and worth. Stript of that clause it has become
a nuisance. In the Bill, as it now stands, there is
not one principle or one clause which the country
cares about, or which could, by any possibility,
soothe the irritated feelings of the Dissenters and
Catholics of Ireland, and avert the public odium from
that gigantic abuse, that monstrous anomaly—unpa-
ralleled, as Lord Holland declared, and Lord Mahon
was forced to admit, in any country in Europe, either
in ancient or in modern times—the overgrown, un-
christian establishment attached to the Protestant
Church in Ireland. The Tory journals are busily
employed, we perceive, in defending the course pur-
sued, factiously pursued—as we have more than once
demonstrated—by the Tory Lords, in reference to the
appropriation clause. One of these prints—the Times
—in the teeth of its own former opinions, as expressed
in an article which we extracted from that journal into
the Chronicle of Monday, and in contempt of decency
and of public opinion, spoke yesterday in the following
terms of the 77th clause :
" Lord Lyndhurst, retracing the history of this Church
question, referred to the time at which the fatal resolution
for plundering the Irish Clergy had first been passed by
the House of Commons, and drew from the different cir-
cumstances of that period, and of the present, a conclu-
sive argument why Lord Melbourne should now feel him-
self bound, as an upright Statesman, to abandon that ill-
omened resolution."
This reference to Lord Lyndhurst's sophistical
speech by his flatterer reminds us of a grossly un-
founded assertion attributed to his Lordship, which
ought
to be noticed. The Ex-Chancellor charged Mi-
nisters with introducing the appropriation principle
into their Bill with the sole view to keep the Tories
out of office. Never was so foully false a charge ad-
vanced against an Administration ! Lord Lyndhurst,
by " retracing the history of this Church question,"
must have discovered the utter falsity of the accusation.
For when was the appropriation clause first inserted in
a Tithe Bill ? Was it not during Lord Grey's Ad-
ministration, when the Tories were denounced by the
Times, because there did not then appear a distant
prospect of their ever again regaining power ? The
147th clause of the Irish Church Bill, introduced by
Lord Althorp on the 12th of February, 1833, distinctly
recognised the principle of surplus appropriation. That
clause was subsequently struck out to please Lord
Stanley, then a Cabinet Minister. Mr. Ward brought
forward a motion for the purpose of re-asserting sub-
stantially the clause. That motion was opposed by the
Whig Ministry of the day : and the circumstances under
which Lord John Russell then consented to the tem-
porary postponement of appropriation were recently
stated at length by the Noble Lord in the pre-
sence of Lord Stanley, and in reply to a charge--simi-
lar in terms to that which Lord Lyndhurst had the
boldness to repeat—made by the chief of the Dilly
against his former colleagues.
_ The manly and crush-
ing statement of the Home Secretary was heard in
silence by Lord Stanley, who did not dare to contradict
the truth, but who lacked the candour and the moral
courage to withdraw his calumnious and spiteful accusa-
tion. Hence it is palpable that Lord Lyndhurst re-
peated a convicted calumny—a refuted slander, when,
on Monday night, he accused the present Govern-
ment of adopting the resolution to appropriate the sur-
plus ecclesiastical revenue of Ireland to the purposes of
national education, with a view to oust the
Peel Administration. The 147th clause of Lord
Stanley's Temporalities Bill corresponds in prin-
ciple (that of appropriation) with the 77th clause
of Lord Morpeth's—the present Tithe Bill. When
the former was inserted in a Church of Ireland
Bill, Lord Grey was Premier. Its authors
and friends, who are now in power could not,
it is evident, have introduced it for the purpose of
embarrassing the Tory party, or of ousting the
Peel Cabinet—a ricketty banding, that did not ex-
ist for upwards of a year and a half after. But does not
Lord Lyndhurst inflict a serious wound upon his friends
while levelling a charge against his political opponents ?
If the appropriation clause—the " fatal resolution "
fatal certainly to the ex-Chancellor—if this clause
turned the usurpers out of place, it must have derived
its force and efficacy from the sanction of the country
as represented in the House of Commons. The
Whigs could not have ousted their adversaries by means
of this appropriation clause, had not the principle of
surplus appropriation carried with it the approbation of
the people. Lord Lyndhurst, by declaring the " fatal"
effect of the " resolution" of the Commons upon him-
self and his friends, admits the popularity of the ap-
propriation clause. Yet, in defiance of the people, he
and the other Tory Lords have expunged that clause
from the Irish Church Bill. To return to the Tory
journals. The Times, it has been seen, characterises
the appropriation clause as one " for plundering the
Irish clergy." So speaks the Times of July 27,
1836 ! What said the same honest Times on the 17th
January, 1833 ? Behold
", Of all the staple grievances of Ireland, since Ireland
ceased to be a subject province, one only has yet been re-
dressed. Catholic emancipation has removed the political
distinction between the sectaries of the two communions.
The Protestant Established Church remains behind, in form
a temple, but in truth a fortress, built from the ruins of
the old national hierarchy, drawing supplies for its ample
garrison from the conquered and impoverished territory
over which it frowns, but yielding no succour nor protec-
tion to its vassals. The Church has been fed by forced
contributions upon industry, progressive with the produce
of the soil. It has wrung them front a people whom it
could not, as a religious establishment, indemnify for the
tax which it extorted. It has flung back -the natural
teachers of the Catholic community upon the spontaneous
bounty of their half-starved flocks, thereby imposing on
them a second, and no inconsiderable burden. The Churn

of Ireland is, finally, one which has for centuries, in every
measure of severity, of exaction, of oppression, signalised
itself by more than concurrence with the tyrannical spirit
of the civil government. It is felt at once to be a weight
upon the country, and a degradation.
" Now, a simple Reform' of the Church of Ireland,
in the same sense in which the term is applied to that of
England, will fall short of its intended purpose. It is not
merely that there are abuses in the Irish Church, such as
pluralities, exorbitant livings, ill-bestowed bishoprics, with
every shape and character of perverted patronage ; nor is
it altogether, though it is greatly, the incorrigible nature
of the tithe system, but the mischief is one of bulk as well
as kind. There is in Ireland too much Church for any
legitimate object which a Church can there contemplate.
The whole mass is too high and ponderous for its narrow
groundwork. The number of bishops ought to be reduced
by two-thirds. Half a dozen diocesans, with one archbi-
shop, would be staff in abundance for the small Protestant

army. The number, likewise, of parochial ministers may,
in many instances, be diminished, and the 15,0001. per an-
num bishoprics ought no longer to disgrace the professed
Christianity of the realm."

So, then, in January, 1833, there was " too much
Church in Ireland," according to the Times, which
also maintained then, that six bishops and one arch-
bishop would form " staff in abundance for the small

Protestant army" in that quarter of the empire. On
the 18th of July of the same year, the Times advo-
cated the appropriation principle, which it yesterday
assailed as spoliatory ; and denounced Lord 'Grey and
his Colleagues for not acquiescing in Mr. Ward's
motion already referred to. The article of the Times
on that day we copied on Monday last ; and the pub-
lic have seen in it a defence of the appropriation
clause upon its own merits, and without any reference
or regard to the supposed income of the Irish Church.
So that the miserable attempt of that journal to shelter
its infamous tergiversation behind the plea of ignorance,

~..

as to the actual revenue of the Church of Ireland, is
dead failure. The Times has recorded its 'opinion, the
there " is too much Church in Ireland," and it has e%
i"-s meaning in the use of that terM, by saYin.
that the ts-Vel'id zi.rebbisliops and bishops which 'Tina'
;Li Ireland, ought to he reduced to seven, and tin
" the number, likewioey of parochial ministel
hi many instances, be diminished." The 0111
difference between the ,Ministerial Bill -which tl
T'i'mes assails as one " for plundering the
e and the proposition of the Times itself, CO'
silts this—that Ministers leave the }lumber
bishops untouched, while the Times would-16p off
mitres. :Another Tory organ, the Mornn!
Post, fiat ttiiiAcqi A considerable portion of its editou!
notice to the artiele i thi,9 Irish Church question ►
the Chronicle of Monday. Considering the time et
Contemporary took to concoct his reply, we must sa
he has performed his task most hobblingly. To are
: t
against an adversary by suppressing some and mise:
presenting inure of his argument, is, it must be or"
remarkably convenient, whatever opinion ma)
formed as to the fairness or the independence of so'
a plan of controversy. This is precisely the case Will
the Post. It may, possibly, be recollected, that or
fixed the Tories on the horns of a dilemma thus
There will be a surplus or there will not. If, there °
a surplus, it must be appropriated to some
,pprpose."
and what so useful, or, let us add, so ecclesiastical'
purpose can it be appropriated to, as " the moral and re
ligious instruction of all classes of the peasantry of Ire
land without distinction of creed !"—the exact purrs
provided for by the 77th clause in the Ministerial 13111
If there be not a surplus, there can be no approPri3
tion ; and without appropriation there cart be,no
crilegious plunder" of the over-paid parsons. Coose
quentiy the clamour about " spoliation" is a kilos°l
and hypocritical cry, raised for the basest of faction'
ends. But it may be said that the abstract princiPiio
of appropriation is in se so atrocious, that the Pil
of Wellington and his Tory allies cannot. sanction 't,
If so, how has it happened that the Noble Duke anc
his Tory confederates have actually sanctioned it 3i;
ready, by appropriating as far as their votes could hat(
such an effect, a large slice of the revenues of th
Church to the uses of the lay, rack-renting landlord'
of Ireland ? This was our argument against the fafli
tious Tory Peers ; we repeat it now and defy "1
the casuists of the party to controvert it f°l,l
reasoning. The writer in the Post has nibble
at the dilemma, but prudently passed by that
part of our remarks which anticipated his erd;
gument about the abstract principle, and already
disposed of that dishonest pretence of the lac;
tion. In truth, the Tories have no •fair ground
stand upon, in their opposition to the approprial,
clause. The party who agreed to abolish Chloe&
rates, and consented to appropriate to the worst 10,
lands—we cannot too often repeat the fact—in Europe
one fourth of the revenues of the parochial Protestant
clergy of Ireland—the party who agreed to this actil,
"appropriation" of ecclesiastical revenues to purely isc
purposes—cannot be influenced by religious. zeal °5O
conscientious scruples in their opposition to that 00,0
in the Irish Church Bill, which merely recognised "Ito
benevolent, salutary principle, that whatever surP
might remain, after amply providing for the cfergYfio
of the ecclesiastical revenues, ought to be iniployeu. 0
diffusing the light of moral and religious instrueretl°,
among the Irish peasantry. The hostility of the )(1,
ries to that principle has sprung exclusively from a'r;
tious feelings—from a spiteful determination to thrills
a liberal Government, and to perpetuate feuds in
sister country.—Morning Chronicle.
113
Our Irish correspondence contains nothing w°r
recital ; for an addition to the catalogue of merce-sot
murders is unquestionably not so in that "civilized
religious" country. We are edified from day to u
al
with accounts of the " tranquil and satisfactory state
of Ireland since the accession of that stage-struck l°;
of shreds and patches, the frivolous novelist--the ;e,
vile revolutionist—the self-degraded messmate oft o.`,
Daniel O'Connell—Constantine, Earl of Mulgra,sci;
What an incentive to the progress and propagatle°o
of Irish liberalism b....what a glorification of the 'lenil:P(l
of rampant Popery—does each post from the westvfrine
of the Irish Channel present to us l The Peer
, -
are quiet—yea, a portion of them quiet enough, AO
not a week passes that some of the people .0-ah
reach the tranquillity of an untimely grave, thr°"%f
the avenue of suborned assassination. The letter rid
this day exhibits as a specimen of the orderly to
well-governed state of Ireland three convictions in t'iie
one county of which Mr. Sheil is representative,
tovie
which three worthies of the same name of Brien
we'
sentenced to die for the separate butcheries of ttbe
innocent men. Three brothers (virtue runs in ,
blood) and one auxiliary villain have just been aPPre
to
hended near Roscrea, and identified as the murdeq
of a man named Egan. In one of the western coon
at
we read last week that 25 prisoners were confinetice,
once for capital felonies. Here be your true pet' the
makers ; none so noiseless, none so submissive, as 4,
dead. And who are the teachers of this blessed !Jo
tem ? Under whose pious, pure, humane instruebeest
has it grown up and flourished ? The "fiche
pisantry" are pupils of the devoutest priesthood
M‘liales preside over that vast university of inerso
in which the murderers of poor Egan have taker' to
eminent a degree. And what was the provocatiou
this atrocious massacre ? 'What angry passion 11:6,
their victim excited ? What wrong had they s
tamed ? What inducement prompted them ? 18TbP
they were bribed—their honesty was ovcrpoweregiii
the voice of mercy was choked within them. Aga the
of beer a-piece •to these " fine pisants l" wasoll
temptation to knock their fellow-creature's brains
We had heard, indeed, some considerable time l/Oof
that four or five shillings would buy the life
is 0
in " (
any man in Munster, except a priest, who .--
to haunt his enemies afterwards. But a gall6ntion
beer, value Is. 6d., betokens a miserable redttoro
in the price of blood, which used to be a 7,itie
costly beverage. A Venetian bravo, of the ger at
stiletto breed, would stab himself in despiqese
the hopeless degeneracy of his calling. Now, t"
are the men of whom a considerable portion of Ire
" people" consists, on whose eagerness for apprl,oo,
tion clauses, and whose preference of Whigs to hig
servatives, Lord Melbourne is not ashamed to rest tc),
measures of hostility to the Irish Church, or to juseos
by the support of their representatives in Parb9rn so
his own tenacity of place. The Noble Lord,--31 et,
Administration has all along been held in eont!ropet
not by the enlightened aristocracy of England: 'moo
but by 99 out of every 100 of those who have ,01
5001. a year to live upon—Lord Melbourne, why
policy (which is no other than that of insuring tbbi• h
self and his congenial followers a tenure of office vylibittet,
shall survive the Constitution), is abhorred by het
ever deserves to be called " mind" in England" ef
lot
the Prime Minister, has the reckless folly to dec
00
that so long as he is supported by a measuring oe
majority, composed of the outlyers and least rellt°lllo 1
portion of the House of Commons, he will brave de
opinion of King, Lords, and gentlemen, and tilfrilo'
Downing-street into a house of call for the vilest
litical rabble. Such a scheme, my Lord Melb?. the
will not prosper long. There is no consisteneY 'hies
parts of it. There are no solid healthful spollcit to'
to cement them. The heterogeneous mass is beoes,
gether by a transient whirl of jealousies, antiPf sits'
and reciprocal counteractions. The first hour ° with
pended activity, the principle of life deserts it, co'
that of motion, and each disengaged atom falls ile. e
verably to the ground.--Times. little
We are afraid that the public have given &atoll its
attention to a Bill which has already gone throned the
several stages of the House of Commons, cane, this
" Polling at Elections Bill." The object of
anti
measure is to limit the duration of polling at Cii°oo,l
Elections to one day. Two days are to be 3 ell
from the nomination of the candidates to the comni
_orie
rnent of the poll ; it is to commence on the thirdls to
ing at eight o'clock, and at five in the evening 16 00
conclude. All votes, which from any cause m_lll be
happen to be tendered within those nine hours, will the
for that turn totally lost. We are very sensible a the,
great advantages of despatch in such matters, .9 an- fool,
evil, particularly as regards expense, which flowed titer'
the old system of polling for many days
but we have serious doubts whether the limit. Wtreure
day of nine hours is not to run into the other ebx(i the
h as J6ll‘
extreme more pernicious, inasmuch as
tedious process the loss of time and money to
in success
one