The Sun.
London, England, 1834-08-13 00:00:00

" ct their native land, and to secure to it the perpetual
beatitude of glorious disturbance. Still we must
admit that the attack made upon the Melbourne
Cabinet by the Duke of Wellington, for its timid and
truckling policy with regard to the Irish agitators,
comes with an ill grace from him who expressly ac-
knowledged that he conceded the Roman Catholic
claims, not because he was convinced of their justice,
or even because he felt an inclination to step beyond
the bounds of strict justice to do a generous thing, but
because he was alarmed into concession by the orga-
nised system of popular intimidation which then pre-
vailed in Ireland. We always thought that the Duke
had acted with great weakness if he yielded to such a
motive that which he would not surrender to any argu-
ments, however strong, that were only backed by peace-
table and respectful solicitation ; and if he did throw open
the doors of Parliament to the agitators of the "Catholic
Association" from such a motive, he acted with equal
indiscretion in avowing it. He says now, "If the
Government are so feeble and irresolute as to allow the
law to be dormant in order that the rent may be col-
lected for Mr. O'Connell, then it is no wonder that the
interests of the Church are sacrificed." No man more
readily sacrificed the interests of the Church when it
suited his purpose than the Duke of Wellington. No
man that ever filled the high situation of Prime Mi-
nister of England offered a greater bounty to agitation
in Ireland than he did. He, of all men, has no right
to blame the present Cabinet for sacrificing the inte-
rests of the Church to conciliate the disturbers of Ire-
land. His concessions, which lie admitted were the
result of that most unstatesmanlike of all qualities—
fear—let out those waters upon the land which have
never since been restrained within the limits of law
and order, and we much question now if they ever will,
until the inundation reaches a height which we do not
wish to contemplate. We have said that if the Irish
Tithe Bill had been carried, we do not think it would
allay the tithe agitation of Ireland. Agitation on other
subjects we are sure it would not ; nor will any measure
which is not conceded by the British Government to
reason and justice, but extorted by fear. The Irish people,
or, at least, the Roman Catholics of Ireland,have called for
an extinction of tithe. They have declared they will
not rest satisfied with any thing short of that. And
did this Bill go the length of extinguishing tithe ?
No such thing. Though it was Mr. O'Connell's Bill,
it did not go that length ; for the Honourable and
Learned agitator, though so hostile to the claims of
the Church, is said to have a sympathy with certain
lay-impropriators. What then did the Bill do ? It
went to convert the tithe payable by the occupier into
a rent-charge to be paid by the landlord, he receiving
the tithe in the shape of increased rent from the tenant
of the land, and paying to the Clergy only 60 per
cent., or three-fifths of the whole nominal amount pay-
able by law. That is, for every 1001. of tithe, the
landlord was to pay a rent-charge of only 401. a pro-
position which appears to have been suggested originally
by Mr. Pierce Mahony, a Roman Catholic Solicitor,
we believe, from whom Mr. O'Connell took the hint,
which the Cabinet felt itself compelled, by its com-
promise with the agitator to adopt, though it made
a show of resistance, to keep up appearances ; but
Mr. Mahony's plan, developed in his letters to Mr.
Littleton, were connected with a principle of redemp-
tion, which was no part of the Bill that has been strangled
by the Lords. The Tithe Bill which the Ministers had
originally agreed upon had clauses of redemption, but
the same controlling power that called for the sacrifice
of two-fifths of the income of the Clergy caused them
to be erased from the Bill. But then it said that
although 20 per cent., or one-fifth, was to go into the
pockets of the Irish landlords, to bribe them to assist
in tranquillising Ireland, yet the other 20 per cent.was
to be made up to the Clergy out of the Consolidated
Fund. Well, but this arrangement would naturally
transfer the discontent respecting tithe from the occu-
piers of land to the whole of the people of England,
Ireland, and Scotland, who contribute to that Conso-
lidated Fund. How was this difficulty to be obviated?
Why, the deficiency was to be made up from the Per-
petuity Fund, as it is called, which fund is created out
of the proceeds arising from the purchase of their leases
by the Bishop's tenants in Ireland, and which fund it
was understood was to go to the augmentation of small
livings, the raising the miserable stipends of Curates,
and the repairs of Churches, so that the people might
thereby be relieved from the church cess in Ireland.
Thus, then, the Bill stood a specimen of anything but
that simplicity of legislation which, above all things,
proves the ability of a statesmanlike intellect. In the
first place, we have seen that two-fifths, or 40 per cent.
were to be taken off the amount of tithe, as converted
into a rent-charge ;20 per cent. of this to go into the
pockets of the landlords, and 20 to be paid to the
clergy, or more truly speaking, 172 out of the Conso-
lidated Fund, and then the deficiency in the Consoli-
dated Fund to be made good out of the Perpetuity
Fund. Has not this very much the appearance of a
juggle ? Would any honest measure require to be en-
veloped from the eye of common observation in so
much complexity and embarrassment. Such states-
manship may be very ingenious, but it is also very ab-
surd. One thing, however, notwithstanding all this
obscurity and mystification, the people of Ireland
would have discovered, and it is that the Bill was not
a measure for the extinguishment of tithe. The House
of Lords, then, if they had passed the Bill, would have
found that they had been dragged captive, like the
Ministers, at the chariot-wheels of Mr. O'Connell's
ambition, and had sacrificed a large proportion of the
property of the Irish Church, without producing tran-
quillity to Ireland. Indeed, Mr. Mahony himself thus
speaks of the Bill, which its authors wish to make the
public believe would have been the means of procuring
a political millennium for Ireland. " This plan will
not answer, and chiefly because the people of Ireland
have been promised an extinction of tithes ; and no-
thing short of, at least, the certainty of extinction
within a year or two will satisfy them or afford
the Government a chance of restoring peace to
that country." Now we are disposed to think
that Mr. Mahony knows the temper and feelings of
his Roman Catholic countrymen on this question as
well as Mr. O'Connell. As a solicitor in extensive
practice, he is likely to be better informed, and he
says to Mr. Littleton—" The only choice we have to
make lies between a speedy and equitable redemption
of tithe or a total coviscatzon of that species of pro-
perty ; and I cannot urge too forcibly on your atten-
tion the fact that the landlords of Ireland dare not
(even if they were so disposed) contaminate their
rents by incorporating with them the collection of
tithe. Let us remember that the combination against
tithe has been eminently successful—that the people
have been allowed to trample on the laws, which now
exist but in name only, for the protection of that
species of property, and that the machinery which
effected such a result remains uninjured and ready,
upon any the slightest pretence, to be directed against
rents." Here, then, is anything but a promise of pa-
cification as the result of the O'Connell and Mel-
bourne Tithe Bill which the House of Lords have
" hurried to the tomb of the Capulets." It is not,
therefore, a thing to be wept over by those who wish
for the peace of Ireland ; for though it went to con-
fiscate a large portion of the property of the Church,
it would not have secured the public peace—it would
rather have been a new supply of oil to the flames of
agitation.—Morning Herald.

An evening contemporary has charged us with in-
consistency (rather absurdly, as we think), for having
some days ago animadverted upon certain defects and
errors in the construction of the Irish Tithe Bill, since
thrown out by the House of Lords, while we yesterday
deplored its rejection. There might have been some
truth and candour in such an accusation, if we had not
carefully and studiously subjoined to our censures on
the principles of the Bill, a distinct acknowledgment
that « if the question should really be, whether the
clergy are to lose a severe per centage on their in-
come, or, as is feared by their Ministerial friends,
the whole of it, which may be possible from the
existing state of Ireland, we can do nothing but
supplicate the Lords to consult their Lordships'
means at the expense of their wishes, and to save
a remnant of the Irish church, by sacrificing those
of its appendages which endanger the whole body
of the institution." Not a day since has gone by in
which, when speaking of the Bill, we have not both
admitted its faulty principles, and insisted on the ne-
cessity of now passing it into a law, as the last shift