The Sun.
London, England, 1833-06-24 00:00:00

given way on this occasion as a peace-offering
to the Tory Lords to avoid " a collision of
which all must deplore the consequences." But
why that collision ? If Mr. Stanley's statement
of the case be true, he has sacrificed nothing
whatever to the Tory Lords—literally nothing—
because, in his opinion, the assertion of a naked
principle is not worth contending for. Then,
let us ask the Right Hon. Gentleman, whence
could arise a collision with the other House of
Parliament ? What materials are there for a
contest ? If the thing be not worth a single
straw, why should the Lords insist on it in such
case? Or, if the principle be just in itself, why
is it the Government and the House of
Commons that should give way, and the enemy
that should have cause to sing Te Deum for
a victory ? The truth is, that the Conserva-
tive party do not so undervalue the im-
mense importance of that night's proceed-
ing. Their organs of the press, and of society,
boast and exult in the degradation thus inflicted
upon Ministers, describing them as men whom
their adversaries need not fear, and whom their
friends are unable to confide in. Look over the
division of that unlucky evening, and you will
see the Government opposed by its friends, and
pushed onward only by its enemies. Mr. Grote,
in his manly, impressive, and upright speech,
condensed into few words the merits and bear-
ings of the question. According to the Mem-
ber for London, the Bill, even in its original
frame, had been scarcely efficient for the purpose
of bringing within just dimensions the Church
of Ireland—" the great ecclesiastical enormity
of Europe." But, robbed of one of its most
significant clauses, instead of voting silently
against it, he would give the Bill his most de-
cided opposition. He added that the whole
professed principle of the Bill was negatived by
the erasure of that single clause, that the House
of Commons would be no worse by sending up
the Bill to the Lords, and letting their Lord-
ships have the merit of rejecting it ; that, for
aught Ministers knew, the Lords might beat
them on other clauses, and that if he might
advise Ministers, it would be to adapt their
measures to the " wants of the people, and
leave the other House of Parliament to act as
they thought fit." This was high and honourable

counsel, Coo bold and straightforward, we fear to
be implicitly followed. In grief, not in anger,
and certainly not in enmity, we repeat that the
surrender of Friday night was a loss of character,
that is, of substantial power. The Tories con-
ciliated by it ! Why, they laugh at it publicly.
They are stimulated by it to the imposition of
fresh burdens and humiliations upon their
weakened foes. Besides, the sacrifices of the
Government cannot end here ; they are but be-
ginning, and thankless as well as disreputable
will be each step in the descent. Between the
Conservatives and the English nation where can
Ministers make a stand, after the demonstra-

tion of a spirit so irresolute ? Without gaining
over a single friend from the Tories, the whole
body of sound and independent Reformers are
affronted at this desertion of the common cause.
The principle thus abandoned was worth all the
rest of the measure. It was one the steady
adherence to which would have inspired the
people almost universally with confidence in the
firmness and wisdom of the King's Ministers,
and would have filled the Tories with corre-
sponding consternation. Ministers, with King
and people at their back, might sm►le with scorn
at au isolated and odious faction ; but alienate
the people from them, and let his Majesty once
distrust their manhood, and what have the
Tories to fear ? Times.
Many of those who hold most stoutly the
principles of the Conservatives, have been dis-
posed to doubt the policy of their recent tactics.
The prudence, for instance, of the late division
in the House of Lords upon the Duke of
Wellington's motion, has been frequently ques-
tioned. It is admitted that the course of
conduct pursued by the Government towards
the rival Princes of Portugal compromised the
honour and the interests of the country : that it
was both the right and the duty of the House
of Lords to interfere for their protection ; that
in the manner of its interference there was no-
thing which faction itself would censure. But
then, it is asked, was it wise upon a matter in
which the nation feels but slight interest, to put
the House of Lords prematurely in opposition
to the King's Ministers, and to waste, in a com-
paratively unimportant skirmish, the strength
which might have been reserved for some more
decisive encounter? We would beg those of our
friends who have reasoned in this fashion to con-
sider what has been the first remarkable conse-
quence ofthe division in the House of Lords. The
Irish Church Temporalities Bill, in the form in
which it was originally introduced, involved the
assertion of a principle far more perilous than
any which the philosophy of the Whigs has yet
propounded. It enacted the conversion of eccle-
siastical property to purposes not ecclesiastical,
The honesty of such a conversion had been de-
nied by one Minister in Lancashire ; had been
affirmed by another Minister in Devonshire ; and
the clause which sanctioned it proved that in the
divided Cabinet evil was predominant over
good—the splenetic recklessness of Lord John
Russell over the conscientious scruples of Mr.
Stanley. We have not yet forgotten the cor-
dial acceptance with which the Irish Church
Temporalities Bill was welcomed by the most
dangerous man in the kingdom. " I hail the
Bill," said the Member for Dublin, "with joy
and with gratitude. It does not remove our
evils ; it does not establish our rights ; but it
lays down a principle by the necessary opera-
tion of which our evils must be speedily
removed, our rights speedily established."
The principle of which Mr. O'Connell so
expressed himself was developed in the clause
which devoted to secular objects the pro-
duce of the sale of ecclesiastical property ;
and it would be strange, indeed, if the
proposal which inspired in Mr. O'Connell so
much of hope and confidence had not filled all
virtuous men and loyal subjects with dismay and
disgust. This most important clause—regarded
with triumphant expectation by one party, with
anxious alarm by the other—cherished by Mr.
Ruthven, anathematised by Mr. Shaw—is with-

drawn without a struggle. How is this mi-
racle wrought ? Has the Political Union re-
lented ? Oh, no ! The Political Union is
still clamorous for any plunder, but especially
for the plunder of the Church. Has the
House of Commons rebelled ? By no means.
The House of Commons, if Lord Althorp
shall speak the word, is still prepared to vote
any iniquity, or any absurdity—that spoliation
is humanity—that interference is neutrality—
that Lord Brougham abhors patronage—that Sir
James Graham is the wittiest of mortals. Why
then have the King's Ministers paused, while
the rabble are yet eager to lead them, and the
rabble's representatives yet ready to obey them ?
There is only. one way in which the
sudden change can be accounted for ?

The House of Lords had shown itself—
upon the question of interference or non-
-interference with Portuguese politics—ho-
nest and fearless. It was to be apprehended.
that the House of Lords would show itself
upon the question of alienation or non-alienation
of church property not less honest and not less
fearless. The attempt to delude or to intimidate
the Sovereign into the extinction of its indepen-
dence had been made, and had signally failed
It was to be apprehended that if the attempt
should be again made it would again as signally
fail. Lord Grey, therefore, and his colleagues
made a virtue of necessity, and professed a de-
sire to avoid a collision, when they perceived
that the collision must needs terminate in their
defeat. The Times became marvellously civil ;
the Chronicle grew laudably tame ; Lord Al-
thorp abandoned in the Commons what Lord
Grey despaired of in the Lords ; and Earl Grey
has for the present resigned his prey, being in-
stigated by the love of his office, and not having
the fear of O'Connell before his eyes. If it be
true that the anticipated opposition of the
House of Lords had an operation upon the
designs of the Cabinet now which it had not
when the Irish Church Bill was first brought
forward, the alteration is wholly to be
attributed to the trial which was made of its
firmness and faith by the division on the
Duke of Wellington's motion. If the House of
Lords is more freely trusted by its friends,
more fearfully respected by its enemies,
than it was a month ago—if it has more
influence to prevent evil and to accomplish good,
the policy of the Duke of Wellington, considered
as the policy of a mere party man, is more than
vindicated by its result. But we do not, for
ourselves, consider the Duke of Wellington as
a mere party man. In these days he who seeks
his own interest walks in an impenetrable cloud,
and wanders every hour from his path ; but he
who looks only for his duty sees by a clear light,
and goes right onward to his journey's end.
Let the greatest man of our time elevate himself
to the height of the task which is presented to
him. Looking to consequences, with neither
hope nor fear, let him continue to speak only
what is true, to do only what is right. We do
not believe that the country desires to see the pre-
rogatives of the House of Lords abolished. We

do not believe that the King will consent to
abolish them. But if their abolition must be

the consequence of their honest exercise, let
them nevertheless be honestly exercised. What-
ever may befal, the Peers of England will not
reproach themselves for refusing to despair of
the understanding of their country, or of the
firmness of their King.—Morning Post.

After the close of the Irish Church Bill Committee, the
motion of Sir Ronald Ferguson for the revival of the War-
t% ick Election Committee came on early this morning. A
spirited debate ensued, and the Conservatives strove hard
to defeat the Gallant General's pla❑ for storming that
fortress of aristocratic corruption. If, as the Tory Mem-
bets asserted, so little was proved against the Earl of
Warwick and the political partisans of his brother, Sir
Charles Greville, we think they would have courted fur-
ther inquiry. Their opposition to the renewed investiga-
tion sufficiently attests its necessity. Sir R. Ferguson,
Mr. Langdale, Mr. Ellice, Mr. Murray, Mr. M. Phil-
lips, and Lord Molyneux, supported the motion ; Sir John
Hanmer, Sir Edward Knatchbull, Sir Thomas Freeman.
tle, and Mr. Holcomb, spoke in opposition to it. The
latter gentleman protested against the inquisitorial power
of obliging a banker to reveal the cash accounts of Lord
Warwick, and said that were he a banker he would rather
go to Newgate than expose them. Mr. Mark Phillips
aptly replied that this legal point came with peculiar grace
from " the Member for Dover, and begged to remind him
that it was oftentimes equally inconvenient to produce a
good and valid qualification to entitle a Member to sit in
that House." Gentlemen who play at bowls must expect
rubbers. On the motion being put for the revival of the
old Committee, Sir Edward Knatchbull proposed an
amendment, that a new Committee should be elected by
ballot. The House divided at half-past two o'clock, when
the original motion was carried by a majority of 97 to 11.
The scandalous corruptions of this borough, and the con-
duct of its Recorder, the Earl of Warwick, will therefore
IQ thoroughly investigated, exposed, and punished. The

ommittee has power to send for witnesses and pipers,
and to report on a remedial measure. The Conservatives
are extremely unhappy in the subject and result of their
elective movements in the House of Commons. They
have run their career, and the day of judgment is come.
—Morning Chronicle.

It is with a regret which we have not language to
express, that we point the attention of our readers to the
relinquishment, by his Majesty's Ministers, of the only
great principle which they have ever attempted to profess
since the passing of the Reform Bill—namely, the con-
trol of the State over the property of the Church, and
its application to whatever purposes it might deem most
beneficial to the public interest. This principle, it will
be remembered, was boldly announced upon the
introduction of the Irish Church Reform Bill, and was
not only most favourably received in the House, but
echoed out of doors, as a proof that the Reform
Bill had not been passed in vain, and that his Ma-
jesty's Ministers inten,led to avail themselves of it for the
promotion of great national purposes. In the Bill also
which was introduced, and which was under discussion
last night, it was distinctly asserted that the " surplus
revenues of the Church should be applied to such pur-
, poses as Parliament shall direct"—but mark the result.
The Lords threaten that they will not pass the Bill in
this shape—the Ministers bluster in turn—Cabinet
Councils are held—visits are made to the King—the
country is thrown into a state of ferment—the Funds are
thrown 21 per cent. below their preceding price in con-
sequence of an expected collision between the Lords and
the Commons—and yet in the end down comes Mr. Stan-
ley, and gives up at once the only great principle which
gave value to his Bill ! Instead of the surplus revenues of
the church being in future applicable to such purposes as
Parliament may direct, they are now to be applied to
only " such religious and pious purposes," &c. In other
words, the church is still to have the possession of its
enormous revenues, and although the number of Bishops
is to be reduced as they happen to die, the country is not
to derive any benefit from the arrangement. Nay, it is
even asserted that although the number of the Bishops
will be gradually diminished, there will be no surplus.
Morning Advertiser.

A Dublin Paper asserts that there are Mem-
bers from that side of the water who sustain part of the
expense of a London life by the sale of franks / We do
not believe it.—Morning Herald.

RIOTS AT GRAVESEND.-SUNDAY AF-
TERNOON —The inhabitants of Gravesend have been
thrown into the utmost alarm by an outrage which threa-
tened to end in bloodshed. On Saturday night, about
eleven o'clock, the watermen commenced demolishing the
pier. These men, who are about 300 in number, are
aggrieved at a pier being built by the Corporation for the
more convenient landing of passengers. A few men were
seen at the time above-mentioned loitering at the hattom
of the High-street, who first broke the lamps and put out
the gas, which it seems was a signal, as the watermen im-
mediately assembled in great numbers, and commenced
demolishing the pier, in which they succeeded to a consi-
derable extent. Wood, iron, and stone work they alike
levelled. They also pulled down the greatest part of the
roundhouse, and were extending their ravages when the
church and town bells were rung, and the MAYOR was
called out, who read the Riot Act from the window of the
Town Hall. The inhubitants, howevtr, remained mere
spectators, evidently intimidated. At three o'clock yes-
t morning some soldiers from the opposite side of
the river arrived, and attempted in vain to disperse
them. At six o'clock Lord DARNLEY'S regiment
of foot arrived from Chatham, to the great joy of the
inhabitants, and succeeded in dispersing the still threaten-
ing watermen. The yeomanry cavalry are now on duty
at the Town Hall, as it is apprehended the attack will be
renewed. We have not heard of any lives being lost.
Great credit is due to Mr. EAGLE, the Mayor, for his
prompt and decided measures for the restoration of tran-
quillity. The rioters were engaged seven hours in tearing
to pieces the pier, which was a beautiful piece of workman-
ship. The town was in the greatest anxiety the whole
of the night, but all is tranquil now. Four o'clock.—The
cavalry are now parading the town, and the public houses
are ordered to be shut up at nine o'clock.