The Sun.
London, England, 1840-05-21 00:00:00

Admission, One Shilling.

MGR WATER AT LONDON BRIDGE TO-MORROW.
Nlorn,n, 39 minutes atter 5 I Zvenlng 2 minutes after 6

Tile Publication of the Ereninz Edition of ME Sttx corn-
mewled at 10 minutes after Three.

4t=7.-=4;
c,„

Zi'be laxtn+

LONDON:
THURSDAY, MAY 21, 1840.

Lord HOWICK, and the representative of the
Li Kral and independent constituency of Halifax,
have earned for tlemselves unenviable fame. They
have merited the title of renegades, let them also
occupy their. place, walk over to the opposition,
and join the apostate STANLEYS and GRAHAMS.
The Liberal party would be well rid of them for the
best of all reasons, an open enemy is less dangerous
than a hollow-hearted false friend. When
Mr. O'CONNELL denounced the GREYS, and
the STANLEYS as the authors of the infa-
mous Coercion Bill, we reprobated his vio-
lent language, because it tended to sow division
among the friends of Reform. We now beg his
pardon. He knew the men. He had been ad-
mitted behind the scene, and with the warmth of a
pattiat he painted them in their true colours, and
held them up to his oppressed countrymen as the
bitter enemies of Ireland. The result of but a few
yeer3 has proved the clearness of his foresight
ant; the truth -of his denunciation. A second measure
of oppression against Ireland is introduced, infinitely
mare galling aktd insulting, because the Coercion
Bill was only temporary, and directed chiefly against
the tlrtarb::ts of the public peace. The Re-
gistration Bi 1 is meant to be perpetual, and its ob-
ject is dist'nctly avowed to be the curtailment of the
Frarch:aa, while that of England and Scot--
land, with all the fictitious votes of the one, and the
a•efaced b ibery and wholesale corruption of the
other rem iis untouched I Could there be a
greater insult to a brave nation, entitled to all the
rights and prit lieges enjoyed by Great Britain, and
that, tco, in defiance of public opinion ex-
pressed by the first nobles, the principal gentry,
and nearly tie whole population of the country, ya
country that -loight so nobly with the English and
the Scotch in a lo4g and bloody war ? And who
brings forward this insulting measure ?—STANLEY.
Who turn the balance on the division ? HOWICK
and his man, who, true to the character which
they have assumed, voted again ;:t the principle of
the Bill, yet this morning with the most shameful
inconsistency voted for isas committal? Had not
Mr. O'CONNELL reason kr denouncing the
GREYS and the STANLEYS, who have thus sa-
crificed principle to personal pique and selfish con-
sidera6ons, and sown the seeds of a civil war in
Ireland for the sake of their order ? We regret
not the result. It has unveiled the men who for
years blighted the best measures of reform secretly
in the Cabinet, and yet put themselves forward
on the hustings, and in Parliament, as patriots and
friends of the people. The electors of Halifax
have been betrayed. They returned, as they
thought, a true Reformer—we take shame in hay
ieg assisted them—and this true Reformer joins
the party that would uphold all the abuses of the
Chinch, chbrk education, and grievously oppress
Ireland, now the most peaceful portion of her MA-
JESTY'S dominions. Can Halifax submit to the
disgrace of being represented by a renegade?
`We- have some some influence in that quarter,
and, when opportunity occurs, it shall not be
exerted in vain. But the Bill cannot pass. it has
three hundred determined enemies in the House of
Commons. The Irish people, all the Liberals and
Radicals of England and Scotland, and the whole
of the liberal press throughout the united kingdom,
will support them in every possible mode of ob-
structing, and finally destroying, a measure which
we denounce as an, infamous attempt of a defeated
party to la cover power, at the risk of civil' war.
If Leland ever submit to such au act of oppression
and injustice,lchen we say, she deserves ;to be en
slaved.

The Lords did not meet yesterday.
Amongst the petitions presented in the Commons
was one from persons in Marylebone, praying for the im-
peachment of Lord JOHN RU96ELL for introducing a
gets d arhierie ; Lord TEIGNMOUTH was its bearer, but
Mr. GISBORNE attracted the attention of the House to
the curious document.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL gave notice that in the
Poor-law Amendment Act he will move a clause to
exempt stock in trade from being rated.
Mr. W ARBURTON stated that, on June 16th, he will
move for leave to bring in a Bill to promote Medical
Reform in England, Scotland, and Ireland, and will
afterwards refer it to a Select Committee.
The debate on the Irish Registration Bill was re-
newed by Mr. IlustE, who male an able speech against
the Bill, reprobated Lord STANLEY'S contempt of the
Irish and psioperly described those who are without the
franchise as slaves, like the blacks in Jamaica. He con-
carped with his constituents in opposing the Bill, and
would give it all the opposition in his power.
Mr. Lucks supported, and Mr. R fiDINGTON opposed,
the 311. Mr. GASKELL would cordially vote for it.
Mr. E. B. lifocHE declared it would throw insuperable
obstacles in the way of the voters of Ireland registering
their latea, and he should not do justice to his constitu-
ents ing did not oppose it.

On Mr. ROCHE resuming his seat there were loud
calls for a division ; but after waiting some time, and
before the galleries were actually cleared, Mr. D. CAL-
. LAGHAN rose and kept the ball alive till the giants of
the House, who had retired to dinner, returned re-
freshed to kick it about for the remainder of the evening.
Mr. TIIESIGER took it up and tossed it about for
some time after his own lumbering fashion. Of course
he had a hit at the Solicitor-General.
Mr. O'CONNELL spoke for an hour and a lia:f
against the Bill, and laid much evidence before the
which
House of gross abupes under the present s) sten),
Lord STANLEY'S Bill kill not cld y. He_ very justly
described it as the offspring of bigotry and hatred to-
wards Ireland, and the conduct of the House in sup-
porting it, should it be supported, as giving life and
energy to repeal.
Sir ROBERT PEEL undertook toshowthat the Bill
remedied great and universally
acknowledged abuses.
What the House, he said, had formerlyc assentedo to,
mitte,
what it would assent to, in going into would be less the Bill of his Noble Friend
tmhm he
principle, that these abuses should he e
remedied—that
every ob,itruction should be kid in the way of the false
claimant, and every facility given to the legitimate
voter. Sir ROBERT, though he spoke with a more con-
venticle twang than usual, though he was full of repeti-
tious, appeared to us to be extremely eloquent,

because he denounced abuses, professed himself
an advocate of Reform, reproached the Ministers
as imperfect reformc?rs, or stigmatized them as only re-
formers when the interests of their party would be pro-
moted by reform, and spoke for forbearance, justice,
and kindness to Ireland, as if he had meant to give
Lord STANLEY a slap in the face, and coax Mr. O'Coic-
NELL. So far did the new and evening zeal of the
Right Hon. Baronet carry him, that he actually de-
clared that a compact should not stand in the
way of remedying an abuse. We call on the
Radicals to prove to the House of Commons, the
gross abuses which exist under the Reform Act,
and though that is said to be a compact betivecn the
two factions against the people, he will, by his own lan-
guage last night, be bound to put an end to the enor-
mous abuses which have grown up under it.
Sir R. PEEL very cunningly appealed to moderate
gentlemen, who, by their absence on the second read-
ing, had shown their superiority to party interests, to
vote for the Committee ; and he fortified his appeal by
the example of Lord Howicx and Mr. C, Woon. It is
one of the evils of the present balanced state of par•
ties, that one or two very insignificant, or worthless,
and disappointed persons, or on whom political prin-
ciples hang loose, can, by a vote, raise themselves into
importance. They are worth a high price, who, under
other circumstances, would fetch r.othing. No doubt
such persons will listen to Sr R. PEEL, and, by fol-
lowing his advice, grasp at the same importance as
Lord Howfcx and Mr. Wool).

Lord MORPETH closed the debate, in a speech which
was eff.•ctivc, and told even on an impatient House.
The Noble Lord has one sterling quality—great
honesty—to which he unites great sincerity ; and
a few words from him go further than many sen-
tences from less respected men. The Noble Lord
declared that the Bill should receive his unabated
opposition at every stage.

On resuming his seat the House divided, and the
motion for going into a Committee was carried by 301
to 298. The Tories, by the help of Lord Howicx
and Mr.WooD, having only a shabby majority of three.
According to their expectations this is a woeful de-
feat, and we may at once conclude that the Bill will
never be carried. Ireland, however, must now be true
to herself, and trust not pretended friends. She must
fight ber own battles, and so she will command the sup-
port of the Liberals of England. Some of those she
has trusted would consign her to the avowed tyranny of
Lord STANLEY and the hypocritical Tories.
The Bill was committed pro forma, the Chairman
reported progress, and the Committee is to sit again Cu
Friday. The House Adjourned.

Sir ROBERT INGLIS'S motion for Church Ex-
tension, which stands for this evening, is for an
address to her MAJESTY, to take into her consi-
deration the deficiency in the number of places of
worship belonging to the Established Church
compared. to the increased and increasing popula-
tion ; it states that no altered distribution of the
revenues of the Established Church could remove
the existing and augmenting evil ; that the grants
made in 1818 and 1824, have been inadequate to
supply the national wants ; that it is the duty of
the Government to employ an adequate portion of
the national wealth to relieve the spiritual destitu-
tion of large masses of the people ; and that the
House will cheerfully make good the cost of such
measures as her MAJESTY may please to recom-
mend, &c. That is the substance of Sir ROBERT
INGLIS'S motion, and to translate it into still
shorter terms, it pledges the House of Com•
mons to supply funds to provide spiritual
instruction for the people in the tenets of
the Church of England to the extent which Sir
R. INGLIS and the priest party deem necessary.
First, as a minor matter, let the reader notice the
use of the word national. National wants means 1
what Sir R. INGLIS and the priests desire in the
way of Churches and endowments. National
wealth means the property of all the individuals
of the community ; and the juggle betwixt national
wants and national wealth means, in plain English,
take from the people to give to the priests.
Secondly, let the reader also notice who deter-
mines the spiritual wants of the people, not the
people themselves, but those, namely, the priests,
who undertake to supply them. Sorely against the
people's will they are compelled—though the com-
pulsion, be it always remembered, arises from their
own respect for the aristocracy—to allow the land-
owner, who has the supply of food in his hands, to
determine how much of that, and at what price,
the people shall have it ; but in no other case is it
tolerated, that those who have a commodity to sell,
prescribe to the buyers how much they must take,
and what price they must pay for it. Tailors sup-
ply us with clothes, and butchers with meat, but
individuals always decide for themselves what they
will order from their butcher and their tailor. They
haggle for the price, and, if it does not suit them,
reject the flesh or the garments. In the case of
spiritual wants, this excellent principle of every-day
life is reversed. The people are held by the priests,
who supply their spiritual wants, to be hopelessly in-
capable of deciding for themselves ; and the priest
party insists on deciding how much spiritual in-
struction they require, and what price they shall pay
for it. Such a mode of proceeding, so contrary to
the ordinary proce9dings of commerce, stamp the
poor people for whom the priests so decide, as
complete slaves, who are not allowed to dispose of
their own property, or judge as to their own need.
Thirdly, though Sir ROBERT INGLIS dwells very
much on the increased and increasing population,
he does not say a single word about the increased
and increasing value of Church property. That is
at least one-sided. Since the Restoration, Church
property in England has undergone no diminution
in amount. The SPARKES, the MARKIIAMS,
the LIA RCOURTS, the SUTTONS, the PRETTY-
MANS, the LAWS, may have built up goodly for-
tunes out of Church property, but except what the
Bishops and Rectors have alienated and pilfered,
the Church possesses now all the land and all the
tithes she possessed at the Revolution. Whether
it have increased in value exactly in proportion to
population we will not say ; but the most sanguine
calculations do not estimate the increase in the
population of England and %Vales above threefold
since the Revolution of 1688. If it were not less
than 5,000,000 then, it is not much more than
15,000,000 now.

With the increase of population, and in conse-
quence of it, the value of Ihe tithes and of the land
belonging to the Church has also increased, in
many instances ten or twelvefold, and in few less
than three. Take, for example, the Bishop of
LONDON, "whose income," said Mr. BAINES, on
March 3, " ascertained by himself, was 13,929/.,
paid only as tenths 9011., making a deficiency
upon the annual payment of 13,028/." That is, the
Bishop of LONDON'S income has increased from
900/. to 13,900/. Mr. BAINES quoted a great
number of other instances, both of Rectories and
Bishoprics, which showed that between the reign
of HENRY VIII. and the present time the value of
Church property has increased four, six, eight,
ten, and even thirty fold. Now, we con-
tend, with all deference to Sir R. INGLIS and the
priest party, that this increase in value—caused by
the increase of the people, does not belong by right
to the Archbishop of CANTERBURY, the Bishop
Of LONDON, the Bishop of WINCHESTER, &c.,
but to the Church, and is misappropriated when
applied to maintain Bishops and Rectors in
the splendour of Princes, instead of providing
for the spiritual instruction of the people. We
hope this matter will be duly investigated by Par-
liament, before taking one farthing from the pockets
of the people, to make good the dilapidations and
misappropriations of the beneficed clergy. The
House of Commons will commit a gross injustice
to the people, if it vote a single farthing to the
imperious beggars, till it have instituted a search-
ing investigation into their income, and how it is
misapplied.

The remark of M j
.
before last, seems to s
&sYerOviUnNgGo,f on
mo trlet e
attentioneven i n g
than we yesterday r
bestowed on it, by briefly noticing
any knowledge
ity.lis \th more valuableeo
of
ictqsu
bi acquit a
rt
ihne
because
s Hon.on
e
tleman off
v
it in our Summa
mand d
efriienmcl so,mpbul
et
te ignorance,ofthe blow it gives the
Tories. '•, who
Men," he said,would
w
sehreilinikidufrcoemd
falsehood in ordinary circumstances,
by the influence of political associates to court
, • •• " We did
gross pct.) in ) . not indeed require
1. M r.
JOHN YOUNG to inform us that the moral sense
depends so much on the opinions of
others, that
to get a mob engaged in any course of conduct de-
prives it of all itnmorality for each of the collected
individuals. It is nevertheless good to have
such a doctrine propounded from the Tory
benches, because it explains how the men
who sit there, keeping each other in countenance
in their leoislative iniquity, become utterly
blind to the distinction between right and wrong,
and callous to all the admonitions of an every-day
and solitary conscience.
An excellent exemplification was given of this
principle by the quotation which Mr. M. J. O'CoN-