The Sun.
London, England, 1834-04-22 00:00:00

LONDON,
TUESDAY EVENING, APRIL 22, 1834.

The Portuguese, Spanish, and French Am-
bassadors have been in very earnest communi-
cation with Lord PALMERSTON these last
three or four days, and we have little doubt it
will turn out that the four courts have come to
an agreement on the means of‘restoring the two
kingdoms of the Peninsula to peace and good
government, and removing from their soil the
two rebel princes whose pretensions have oc-
casioned so much disaster and bloodshed.

The Bishop of EXETER, in his zeal to vin-
dicate the practice of his Alma Mater, ex-
plained (oh, courteous term I) the principle on
which subscription to the most solemn, awful,
and difficult propositions, is required of lads of
16 or 17 years before they are admitted to the
benefit of a religious education. It seems they
are required to profess, subscribe, and swear
many things which they are not expected to
understand, and which they are not strictly
or literally bound to believe ; so that the
first lesson the ingenuous youth is taught
in ' his progress to Christian purity and
truth is that he may say, sign, and swear one
thing and mean another. He means, forsooth,
by signing all the subtle and abstruse propo-
sitions contained in the articles of his faith, '
that he is willing to learn what they are, and
not that they are what he has learnt. Pretty
sophistry this for the schools of religion and
learning. His reverence for the Deity is to be
enforced by being told that it does not much
signify what he in the first instance may
practically sign or swear about him, and

his habits of Christian sincerity are to be
riveted by the practice of saying one thing and
meaning another. Is this the Episcopalian
nostrum for curing us of the malady of dissent ?
Is this the Oxford logic and religion ? Are
the sincere and conscientious to be reconciled
to orthodoxy by being told that it is to be pro-
fessed and testified by signature first, and to be
studied and ascertained afterwards ?

The plan of Lord ALTHORP for the aboli-

tion of church rates, and the substitution of a ge-
neral tax, or (what is the same thing) of a certain
sum out of the general taxes, did not give entire
satisfaction last night to radicals, tories, or
dissenters ; the heads of these respective classes
had all some objections to the measure. Sir R.
INGL is objected to it because it interfered with
the security of the church ; Mr. Wm ics, as a
dissenter, objected to it on principle ; and Mr.
HUME, as a good radical economist, objected to
it (and it will be seen he was supported by a
large minority) on the pound that there
were ample funds for the maintenance of
the church, without having recourse to
voluntary or compulsory contributions. This
objection is the only one tenable. So far from
interfering with the security of the church, it is
calculated for its protection ; and if the dissen-
ters object to it from principle, we can see no
reason why they should not also object on
principle to grant an equivalent for tithes, or
to any other grant, for the support of any civil
or clerical establishment of any description which
did not meet their views. If there is to be an
Established Church, that church must be
maintained at the expense of the public. If
the connection between church and state is to
be dissolved, then it is as absurd to allow
an equivalent for tithes as it is to contri-
bute to the repairs of churches, or pay for
organists, beadles, and bell-ringers. Tithes
were originally granted for the maintenance of
the Church ; they have, by Act of Parliament,
been transferred from one church to another,
and the only security the Church has for their
payment is the sanction of Parliament ; for they
might with as little deviation from justice or
equity be taken away altogether as be taken