The Sun.
London, England, 1834-08-12 00:00:00

iiiL .1., 3 .17, i'iND “THE LiLL,

(FROM A CORRESPONDENT.)

could be secured to the Protestant Clergy in Ireland.
Though two-fifths of the tithe were to have been
given to the Irish landlords, yet only one-fifth was to
have been taken from the Irish Protestant Clergy. A
fifth was to have been paid to them out of the Consolidated
Fund, which again was to have been reimbursed by
the returns expected from the Church Temporalities
Fund. The diminution to the Clergy therefore would
have been only one-fifth, and considering the rise that
has taken place in the exchangeable value of money,
and the risk that was to have been thrown upon the
owners of the soil in Ireland, upon whose land the
commuted tithe was to become a preferable charge,
and the certainty of payment, and the saving of the
expense of collecting that was to accrue to the Clergy
from the passing of the Bill, we think to the extent of

this fifth the Bill was justifiable as an act of reason-
able expediency, but to grant a fifth more to the
owners of land in Ireland, and that at the expense of
the Consolidated Fund of Great Britain, we find it
altogether impossible to defend, excepting as an
act of consideration and mercy to the Protestant

Clergy of Ireland, and as the means of preserv-
ing the Protestant Church there—for without this
Bill, we again ask, how can the Protestant Clergy
exist in Ireland ? Nevertheless, it has been rejected
by a majority of sixty-seven, the numbers being--
Contents—Present

Proxies..

--122

Non-Contents—Present.

Proxies..

104
-189
Majority
-67
The rejection is a repetition of a course similar to
hat taken in the case of the first Reform Bill ; and
n so far as concerns the rejectors, the rejection will be
attended with similar consequences. ifut, in the present
case, there is the situation of the Protestant Clergy in

Ireland to deplore, and the Protestant Church in Ire

land to tremble for. Churchmen and Church, how

ever, and all mankind, appear to be alike indifferent to
the rejectors of this Bill, when anything stands in the
way of their short-sighted views.

The present Bill, however, according to them, was
not to be tolerated, because Mr. O'CONNELL was the
author of the alteration made upon it. And if he
were, did he do otherwise than give effect to the wishes
of the landowners of Ireland, and has not the rejec-
tion of it prodigiously increased his power and his
means? Has it not made the Irish landowners, as
he has long made the Irish commonalty his own, to
minister to his purposes ?

The difficulties of the Government, certainly, ara
greatly increased by the rejection of the Bill. But,
we trust, the Government is equal to the occasion, and
will do what is required of it, under the circumstances
in which it is thereby placed.

THE

IRISH TITHES BILL.

LIST
the House of 1.01
read

OF THE MINORITY
xis, on the 11th of August, for the second
ing of the Irish Tithe iiill.
PEERS PRESENT.

DUKES.
H. R. H. the Duke
of Sussex
Argyll
Devonshire
Leinster
Norfolk
Richmond
Sutherland

EARLS.
Cork
Darnley
Gosford
Leitrim
Mulgrave
R•idnor
Ripon
Thanet
VISCOUNTS.
Bolingbroke
Duncannon
Melbourne
Torrington
St. Vincent
BA RONS.
Auckland
Brougham
Duel°
Elphinstone
PROXIES.
EARLS.
Ludlow
Minto
Moray
Rosebery
Spencer
Suffblk
Uxbridge
vlscouNT.
Lake
BARONS.
Alvanley
Barham
Berners
Boyle
i:yron
Carleton
Chaworth
Cloncurry
Denman
Dinorben
Dorchester
De Saumarez
Dunally
Dundas
Erskine

BARONS.
Foley
Gardner •
Hill
Holland
Howardof Etlinghan
How•den
King
Liltord
Lynedoch
Itlostyn
Poltiinore
Say and Sele.
Sefton
Segravo
Staflbrd
Teyn ham

MARQUI3E9.
Clanric.irde
Conyngbam
Lansdowne
Queensberry
Tavistock
Westminster

EARLS.
Albeinaile
Charlemont
Chichester

BISHOPS.
Chichester
Derry

DUKES.
Bedford
Cleveland
Grafton
St. A iban's
MARQUISES.
Ailsa
A nglesea
Breadalbane
Wellesley

BARONS.
Godohpin
Grey
Hamilton
Hawke
Howard de Walden
Kenlis
Kilmarnock
Kinnaird
Loud and Holland
Lyttleton
Mendip
Montfort
Monteagle
Panmure.
Plunkett
Ponsonby
Sondes
Stanely
Stourton
Suffield
Templemore
Western
Yarborough
BISHOP.
Norwich

EA ILLS.
Amherst
Burlington
Cariisle
Camperdown
Clarendon
Cowper
Denbigh
Durham
Essex
Ferrers
Fife
Fmgall
Granville

Grey
Huntingdon
Lichfield
*a • Lord M

relbourne held the proxy

)f Earl Grey.

AN AERIAL FLlGHT.—Between four and five
o'clock on Sunday afternoon, an eagle, having burst the tram-
mels of its prison-house, was observed in the New Kent-road,
soaring with majestic flight, and bending its course towards
the river Thames. Such an unusual occurrence attracted the
notice of a great number of persons, and excited a most lively
interest. Whence this winged fugitive made its escape, or
where it has taken up its future abode, we have not been able
to learn.

In the United States 275 original works have been
published during the year 1833. Of these 23 have already
been announced as reprinted in England.—New York Adver-
tiser.

SALMON.—The rivers Beanly, Conon, Spey, &c.,
continue amazingly prolific of fine salmon. The season is one
of the best that has been experienced for many years.—Edin-
burgh Paper.

Miss Dring, the daughter of Mr. Dring, black-
smith, of St. Ives, has for the last two months been voiding
needles from various parts of her body ; and in one instance
a needle came from her eye. We are surprised at the cause
of this girl putting herself to such torture for no purpose
that we can discover, as she makes no profit by it. The
story we hear is curious :--A gipsy called at the door of her
mother to sell some needles, and not feeling inclined to pur-
chase any, the woman said, if you do not buy them, it will be
worse for you ; and the believers seem to be impressed with a
conviction, that the gipsy had the power of inflicting on this
girl a torture that no one would suppose she would willingly
submit herself to.—Stamford News.

Sur-l- the Peer of the realm do not read history.
Upon the Reformation, was not the Church despoiled
of its property, and the spoil divided between the
Crown and the great proprietors both in England and
Scotland Is it singular, then, that under present
circumstances, Irish proprietors should take to them-
selves a share of what others are attempting to lay
their hands upon ? We do not justify the landlords
of Ireland in attempting to take to themselves two-
fifths of the tithes payable, or that ought to be payable
in Ireland. It is a robbery to which they desire to
force the sanction of legal appropriation. Moreover,
as it appears to us, it is bad policy, because by thus
setting an example of laying hold of what does not
belong to them, in the shape of tithe, we are afraid
that the tenantry of Ireland may follow the example
that has been set them by their landlords, and
lay hold of what does not belong to them in the
shape of rent. But indefensible as the Irish
Tithe Bill is in principle, and dangerous, as it
appears to us, it may become, by encouraging the te-
nantry to resist the payment of rent, as they have re-
sisted the payment of Tithe in Ireland, still we arc
now afraid, that by throwing out the Bill, as the
House of Peers has done upon the second reading,
the Protestant Church in Ireland may be shaken
to its foundations, for without the means of living how
can the Protestant Clergy remain in Ireland, and this
Bill having been thrown out, how are they to have the
means of living there ?
Indefensible as it is, therefore, in principle, this Bill
was the only practical means by which an income