The Sun.
London, England, 1834-09-01 00:00:00

SPIRIT OF THE_PUBLIC JOURNALS.

Our attention has been directed to a curious article
inserted in the Dublin Evening Mail of the 25th
instant. It looks very like a commencement of a backing
out of their scrape by the patrons of the Irish Clergy.
We observe, at its conclusion, a declaration, that " it
is solely.
_to the fraud, and the mal-appropriation of a
sacred fund, belonging by law to the Protestant Laity,
that, in a pecuniary point of view, the Clergy and their
friends protest, that they are not, were not, nor will be,
discontented with 771.105. out of every 1001. of their
lawful property." What rogues these patrons of the
Irish Clergy are I But they are not greater than all
men must be that will put all the heat and excitement
that the human mind is capable of into the defence of
wrong. Was it solely against this imputed fraud that
the ravings of Shaw, and .Lefroy, . and Mr. Stanley,
were directed during the last month of the session ?
Did they not practically object to the measure on the
ground that the redemption clauses were omitted ; to-
ether with. those providing for investment in land ?
id not each, of them declare that, with those provisions,
they might have voted for the second reading of the
Bill ; that without those provisions they never would
consent to it ? But not one word, in this article of
the Evening Mail, do we now find upon either of
these points. If we are to believe this article to
speak the sense of the Irish clergy, or of those hard,
but well-paid, task-masters in the higher ranks of the
Irish Church, who coerce their poorer dependents, it
would now appear that they would gladly take the
whole of the arrangement as proposed in the last print
of the Bill, provided that the perpetuity purchase
fund were left out of the account, One is not always
sure of the meaning of the ravings of party zealots ;
but if =the article means anything, it means what we
have stated, and nothing more, and can be considered
only in the light of a symptom of repentance. But
we can tell these gentlemen that they have more humi-
liating concessions to make than these. Under the
Bill as it stood, one-fifth deduction only was to be borne
by the Tithe-owners ; and that to the Corporation of
Tithe-owners generally as a body was no loss at all, for
they lost as much every year. Of the other one-fifth,
at least two portions would have been paid absolutely
by the Crown, and not by the Church; for the perpe-
tuity purchase:fund would, not have been equal to more
than one-third of the amount. But it may be well for
those who profess their honour to be bound up with
the integrity of that fund, and whose religious sensi-
bilities are so shocked by the dedication of it to any,
even semi-religious, use, if they ever again make so
good a bargain. However this is not the time to go
into this part of the question. Let us wait the result
of the Commission which is actively at work under the
able directi9n 6, Mr. Curran andhis co-commissioners in
Ireland. Our only object now is to point attention to
this article, which is intended to convey an impression
that it was solely to the intended fraud on the perpe-
tuity purchase fund that the patrons of the Church
objected, in their insane fury against the Tithe Bill.
We recommend to their perusal Mr. Stanley's argu-
ment on the character of that fund, and on the 147th
clause of the Church Temporalities Bill,, during the
session of 1832. The following is the article from
the Dublin Evening Mail:—
" LAY INTEREST IN CHURCH PROPERTY.
,‘ We dem:marbled in our last that the Laity, in protecting
the cause of the Clergy, were, in point of fact, only maintain-
ing their 9wn interests. We proceed now to show, that in re-
jecting The late Tithe Bill, the Clergy are not so much serving
themselves, as a body, as preserving the rights and interests of
th 4 Laity.
,•`" Until the passing of the act, in a late session of Parlia-
ment, for the abolition of Vestry Cess, the building and re-
pairing of churches, and the cost of other incidents of public
worship, were laid upon the parish. The act to which we
refer transferred the burden to the Clergy ; and a per centage,
ranging from three to ten, or fifteen per cent., according to
the value of the benefice, was laid on all clerical incomes, to
provide -a fund in lieu of parish cess, and applicable to the
same purposes. This was said to be a commutation of the
first fruits ; and to a Board of Commissioners, resembling in
funtions that of the Board of First Fruits, this fund was en-
trusted. The objects to which by law it was applicable were—
" 1. The building and enlarging of parish churches and
chapels of ease.
" 2. The repairing, &c., of the same.
" 3. The providing of things needful for the celebration of
divine service.

" It is evident, then, that this fund belongs to the Lay con-
gregations of Protestants, for the purpose of maintaining the
public worship; and that, if this fund be diverted to other
purposes, there remains to the Protestant population no legal
provision—no means whatsoever, but that of private subscrip-
t►on for the maintenance of the fabric of the Church, or the
celebration of her services.

To this tax upon clerical income, the clergy cheerfully
submitted, because they conceived their flocks would have the
benefit of it. It is to the alienation of this fund to other pur-
poses, that they now object.
" The scheme of the rejected Bill, with Mr. O'Connell's
amendment, as explained by Lord Melbourne, may be thus
stated.

" Forty per cent. of tithes was to have been extinguished
for ever, as far as tithes can be extinguished, which is only in
name. But the clergy were still to receive, not the remain-
ing sixty per cent., but. 77/. 10s. per cent., in the following
manner; namely, from the landlord the sixty per cent., which
was still to be levied on the land ; and from Government
171. 10s. per cent. ; two and a half per cent. being deducted
tor agency, &c.,.out of the one-fifth which Government under-
took to pay.
" By this 'distribution, the landlord or the tenant (or both
between them) was to pocket forty per cent. of the tithes ;
but the clergy were to lose only 221. 10s. per cent., the re-
mainder of the forty per cent. being to be made good to them
by Government. This difference was to be advanced to the
Clergy out of the consolidated fund ; but it was to be repaid
to Government out of that fund which we have already de-
scribed as levied upon clerical income, and lodged in the hands
of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners for the purpose of pro-
viding the Protestant LAy-population of Ireland with the
means of carrying on Divine Worship—namely, churches and
chapels of ease, and the other requisites of public ssrvicc.
" Now, mark the anomaly and absurdity—yea, and what is
worse, the dishonesty of this proposal. The clergy were to
be taxed at the average rate of 71. per cent. in order to create
a fund for providing their congregations with churches, &c.,
and they were to be paid back, out of this very fund, 171. 10s.
per cent., for their own use and support l—a proceeding so
Irish, that it would evidently leave " less than nothing" for
its original and ostensible objects.
It It is solely to this fraud—to this mal-appropriation of a
sacred fund belonging by law to the Protestant Laity, that, in a
pecuniary point of view, the Clergy and their friends protest.
They are not, were not, nor would be, discontented with
771. 10s. out of every 1001. of their lawful property. To the
Bill, as it stood previous to Mr. O'Connell's first bite out of
the cherry,' they had, by the mouth of Mr. Shaw and their
other Parliamentary friends, given a hearty assent ; and by
this Bill, it was provided that, for sake of better security, they
should resign one-fifth, or 20 per cent. The 21 per cent. for
agency was too trifling an_ object to stand in the way of a
final settlement; and surely they who had given up so much
for peace would not have resisted the purchase of it at the
further cost of 2L 10s. out of every eighty pounds. In point
of income, then, the clergy would be as well off personally,
under the amended, as under that original Bill, to which they
had agreed. But they cannot consent that, for the sake of
making good their income, the Protestant Church shall be de-
prived of the means of keeping up her fabric ; that the Laity
of their congregations shall be robbed of that sacred fund
provided for the perpetual celebration of divine worship, ac-
cording to the forms and doctrines of the Church to which
t4ey belong.
This fund belongs to the Laity of Ireland. They must
assist their Clergy in preserving the sacred deposit.”—Aforn-
ing Chronicle.

The Chancellor has signalised his fitness for the
improvement of the libel law by his approval of the
procedure by criminal information. Upon this subject
he held forth as follows, in his evidence before the
committee :

" The advantage of proceeding by criminal information is
this : it erects the Court of King's Bench (and this was al-
ways Lord Erskine's opinion, entitled to great deference on
all subjects, but on none snore than on this) into a court of
honour, which may well administer the law of honour between
party and party, with a due attention both to the wounded
feelings of the individual and to the preservation of the peace.
But it has this singular advantage besider—that it enables the
party defamed, to purge himself of the offence charged, and
gives him an opportunity of defying his adversary to prove the
truth of-his accusation. It is in this particular doubly advan-
tageous beyond an action, which simply defies the slanderer to
prove his charge ; and from its nature this may be impossible,
though the thing may all the while be true ; so that bringing
an action really often leaves the truth or falsehood very doubt-
fill; for how many charges are there which niay be quite true,
the gravest charges of all, and in which an action is brutum
fulmen, because the defendant cannot by possibility have evidence
of it ; and so the bringing an action may only show that the plain-
tiff is conscious of having committed the offence charged, but cer-
tain also there can be no evidence against him. For instance, if
a man is charged with adultery or seduction—very grave offences,
which in the minds of many persons arc so grave that he who
is guilty ought to be driven from society—the truth of the
charge may be known to himself and his paramour only; and
thus it is just as likely, after the verdict for damages shall pass,
that the slander was true as before the action was brought.
The event will only have proved that no waiting-maid or valet-
de-chambre had been able to give evidence, or that no one but
the parties was cognizant of the fact. But those persons
hiving to porno before the Court with afEdavits .of denial, as
well se exposing themselves to affidavits of the opposite par.

ty, it does not follow that the same persons who would pro-
ceed by action would venture to swear, and both perjure them-
selves, and let it be known each to the other for ever after
that be had been guilty of one of the foulest crimes that man
can commit,—namely, perjury. These are the reasons why I
think that the application in Court for a criminal information,
under the statute of William, is a very important and beneficial
proceeding for a person defamed."
Why Lord Brougham should have made choice of
adultery for his example, it is not easy to conjecture,
for it is surely a most unapt case for his purpose ; but
so it is, that whatever happens to be running in his
head finds its way out of his mouth. His Lordship
argues with great simplicity, that a guilty pair would
not venture to swear, and both perjure themselves, and
let it be known each to the other, that he or she hacl
committed one of the foulest crimes—namely, perjury.
Why when they committed adultery they let it be
known, each to the other, that they had committed one
of the foulest sins ; and it is hardly to be supposed that
they would have more scruples in denying their
_guilt,
gach for the sake both of self and the other, than in
committing it. Every one knows the extremities to
which men will go to save female reputation in such
cases, and, black as is the crime of perjury, we do
not believe that an unprincipled seducer would hesi-
tate to take a false oath, which would defend him and
his paramour from the consequences of their guilt,
and defeat their accuser. The keeper of a royal
conscience should suppose it at least as improbable
that people should commit adultery as that they
should swear falsely to conceal it, especially as Lord
Brougham has taken some pains to show that the
youth of England are trained to taking false oaths.
In an argument against the purgation by oath in cri-
minal informations, the case of adultery might have
been used with success. But in this, as in all other
recent instances, we see the miscarriage of the
Chancellor's mind. He reminds one of a boy in love,
taking up the one thing when he wants another, forget-
ful, abrupt, and incapable of pursuing an idea, or ob-
serving any-coherency or congruity in speech or action.
His flesh is surely fishified. But dropping the unfor-
tunate example of adultery, we go on with the reason-
ing in favour of procedure by criminal iuformation

Nothing can be more satisfactory in some important re-
spects than this proceeding. Where a person sees a publica-
tion charging him with a heinous offence which he knows to
be utterly false, it is a great relief to him that he can instantly
get a remedy, for it is festinum remedium, except in the course
of the long vacation ; he can immediately proceed ; he dis-
charges his mind by instantly making an affidavit : he then
receives the consolation of hearing the Court express a strong
opinion, which in such circumstances they never fail to do, in
his favour. He then defies his adversary to prove the false-
hood. His adversary is dared to it, and unless he can do so,
he must submit to the information. This I have generally
found to be by far the most satisfactory of all the remedies
given by law to persons defamed. It is made to depend upon
court of honour, not precisely like a jury, which is not so
well adapted to be a court of honour as four men, generally of
the superior classes of society, by whom character is most
valued."

. But how stands the case if the offence be truly
charged ? There is a temptation then to obtain relief
by the commission of perjury, and if the affidavits on
the other side cannot substantiate the accusation, and
in few instances is it probable that they can, all the ad-
vantages rest with the forsworn prosecutor, who has
the " consolation of hearing the Court express a
strong opinion, which in such circumstances they never
fail to do, in his favour," and further of shutting out
the proof of the truth of the charge against him from
the instant that the information is granted. At/this
step of the proceeding the case is prejudged. It is held
that the truth has been discovered through the con-
flicting affidavits, and in the subsequent trial the de-
fendant labours under prejudice, as he would not be
in court unless the Judges had been of opinion that
he had preferred a false accusation. He offers evi-
dence to prove,the truth of the charge, which the
Judges have disbelieved when supported only by
affidavit, and contradicted, be it also observed, by
affidavit only, but the evidence is not admitted. What
can be more inconsistent with the whole genius of our
law than this proceeding ? Which is supposed to be
the better method of getting at the truth—the reading,
of affidavits, or the hearing of oral evidence sub-
jected to the searching test of cross-examination ?
We need not supply the answer ; all experience
affords it. But in procedure by criminal information
the clumsiest, the most awkward, the most inadequate
and uncertain instruments for grappling with truth are
employed in the first instance ; and work being so
done by the worst means, the use of the best means
for the same object is afterwards not allowed. What
has appeared by affidavits is not to be rebutted and
disproved by what might appear from oral evidence.
The question of the truth or falsehood of the charge
having been disposed-of in the preliminary proceeding
by the worst process, the law will not permit the Con-
clusion to be disturbed by the best process for the dis-
covery of truth. Justice, in the first step, says,
" The truth of the accusation must be ascertained. '
She then sets about the discovery by the method she
least approves and least practises, and having got a
result by the doubtful process, concludes " And now
we will go to trial and have nothing more to do with
truth." The truth is declared irrelevant, after it has
been sought in the way in which it is least likely to
be found. And this is the procedure which the Lord
Brougham approves, setting up, as he does, for a re-
former of the libel law, and having had experience of
some of the monstrous absurdities and miscarriages of
justice incidental to the practice for which he contends.
The question was asked—
" Is there not this inconvenience as to the practice of pro-
ceeding by information—that the Court having once granted
an information incurring the expense of a trial, the man against
whom the criminal information was upon debate granted was
afterwards acquitted ?
Lord Brougham answered—
" Yes; I have seen that happen, and I have kneWn convic-
tions on which no judgment could be had. I recollect an in-
stance of a prosecutor, a magistrate, who obtained his criminal
information on affidavit, but made such a figure when under
cross-examination on 'the trial, that he did not venture to
bring up the defendent for judgment, though there was a con-
viction."

But there was a conviction, and the defendant was
under the pain of having it hanging over his head,
which is no small evil ; and the granting of the infor-
mation in such a case is example of the danger of
drawing conclusions from affidavits, and further the
conviction, notwithstanding the discrediting exposure of
the prosecutor under examination, was probably a con-
sequence of the injurious prejudice against the defen-
dant, upon which we have before observed, arising
from the decision of the Court in the preliminary pro-
ceeding as to the falsehood of the alleged libel. Al-
most immediately after the Chancellor had instanced
the above case, he was asked

" Is not the great expense of a criminal information always
most harsh 'upon the defendant ?"
His' Lordship replied—
" I confess Ido not feel that MUCt. If a person chooses to
publish libels on another's character, he is not deserving of
very great favour."

-‘‘-If a person chooses to publish libels !" but what
if he has not published libels? What if, as in the
case quoted by his Lordship, he is convicted against
the evidence, by vice of the procedure by criminal in-
formation ? Even though the defendant may be ac-
quitted too, expenses will fall on him though he has
not, according to the final judgment of the Court,
chosen to write libels. If the hardships and injustice
to which writers and publishers may be subjected
under the present Libel Law are so considered by Lord
Brougham, we have only to say Heaven forbid that
the reformation of the law be committed to his hands,
for much should we apprehend aggravation of the evil
instead of alleviation from such a quarter. It is clear
that the Chancellor has philosophy enough to bear
some of the most vexatious troubles of the press.—
Times.

The letter of Mr. O'Connell to the people of Ire-
land, as he chooses to call his own faction, appears in
our Paper of this day. is a document worthy of
much attention, as it illustrates the immediate tactics
of Popish agitation in Ireland, and of still more atten-
tion as it exposes the true character and position of
the British Administration. There is, perkaps, no-
thing more remarkable in this last production of Mr.
O'Connell than the confidence with which he claims
the present Ministers of the Crown as his pledged
confederates, unless, indeed, it be the easy impudence
and the surpassing vigour with which he kicks, and
spurns, and tramples upon his boasted allies. He
evidently thinks, and in this he makes no mistake, that
he has got the present Administration completely in
his clutches, and that, while they are bound .to pro-
mote his objects and obey
.his commands, he may

THE SUN, LONDON, MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 1, 1834.

with perfect safety tease, deride, insult, and baffle
them just as much as he pleases. He writes, so far
as they are concerned, like a master, conscious that he
has in his hands the mast unresisting and helpless of
slaves. The British Administration "is identified" in
interest " with the Irish people." "It is because I
am convinced that the interests of Ireland are identi-
fied with those of the present Ministry that I support
them." "In opposition to the Orangemen the present
Ministry must join us." "We have a right to expect
that the King's Government will now act with deci-
sion after the late scene of atrocity. in Dublin." " The
army, the police, and, indeed, the King's Govern-
ment, must take part with us, if we do keep within
the law." These are the least confident terms in which
Mr. O'Connell announces his alliance with the British
Administration. And, as might naturally be expected,
in such an alliance, he proceeds to take the whole game
into his own bands, and to show how thoroughly he
despises his confederates, and how little he cares for
their characters, their policy, or their feelings. We
will mention a few of the instances in which Mr.
O'Connell's just contempt for his colleagues in the
British Cabinet is most strongly marked. Ist. Re-
gardless of the wishes and feelings of his confederates
of Whitehall, he takes care to proclaim that the Ro-
man Catholic Priesthood of Ireland are also his con-
federates. " Perhaps it will be communicated to every
Catholic in Ireland, and to many Protestants, that I
denounce," &c. But it is not every Roman Catholic
in Ireland who can read the Pilot. There are
many parishes in which the Priest is the only Ro-
man Catholic possessing this valuable • accom-
plishment. How, then, is Mr. O'Connell's de-
nunciations to be communicated to every Roman
Catholic unless by the active intervention of the priest-
hood ? The boast might have been spared. To have
spared it would have been agreeable and advantageoas
to the Whitehall members of the alliance. Even Lord
Duncannon would have been gratified by the omission.
But this would not have suited Mr. O'Connell. It
was his policy and his humour to intimate to them, and
to proclaim to the whole world, that he had other con-
federates, of greater value and importance, in his esti-
mation, than the members of the Cabinet. 2dly. It
would no doubt have been agreeable to the policy of
the British Administration that the Roman Catholic
party in Ireland should have assumed an appearance of
tranquillity, however illusory and transient, had it been
merely in hollow compliment to the new alliance. But
even this hollow compliment Mr. O'Connell disdains
to pay. It may truly be said that, with the usual ad-
mixture of hypocritical admonitions to peace, the last
address of the Agitator exceeds any of his former ones
in the skill, frequency, and power of its incentives to
violence and outrage. It is throughout little else but
an appeal to the turbulent and vindictive passions of
an excitable people. It presents, in a series of well-
imagined and skilfully-constructed falsehoods, the Pro-
testants of Ireland the fit and natural objects of Ro-
man Catholic hatred and vengeance. It speaks of the
Nobles among them as " titled banditti," and is
throughout more than usually full of the cant
phrases of mendacious malignity. In proof of
this we need only select at random a few of its exas-
perating expressions :—" Sanguinary bigotry," " car-
nage and slaughter," " diabolical rancour and hate,"
" Orange warwhoop," " agitation of bigotry and ty-
ranny," " oppression and massacre," "titled Orange-
men, preparing the means of exterminating the Poor,"
" wickedness of Irish Parsons and their advisers,"
" English domination," " the warwhoop of bigotry and
blood," " crimes respecting Ireland committed by Lord
Grey's Government." The word " blood," which is
never used but to madden those to whom it is ad-
dressed, is repeated not less than eight times. This is
the language employed by Mr. O'Connell in the same
document in which he confidently asserts that he and
the British Administration are embarked in a common
cause—that, in the fullest sense of the expr6sion,
they are allies and confederates. But the British Ad-
ministration is responsible for the peace of Ireland,
and they cannot but feel that, in using such lan-
guage, Mr. O'Connell must have intended to show how
securely, he holds them in his grasp—how much
he is at liberty to insult and trample upon them.-
3dly. Again, Mr. O'Connell kicks and tramples
upon his confederates of Whitehall in the terms
in which he speaks of the whole of their late col-
leagues, and of some of their actual number. The
present Administration cannot wish that it should be
proclaimed to the world from the mouth of a confede-
rate how widely they differ from the Government of
Earl Grey. Whatever may be thought by the O'Con-
nell faction in Ireland, they know that the promulga-
tion of this (true though it be) cannot enhance their
reputation or promote their interests among the people
of England. But to those feelings Mr. O'Connell
pays no regard. He hated the Administration of Earl
Grey ; he is perfectly enamoured of that of Lord
Melbourne ; and, whatever may become of his old
enemies, or of his new friends, his consistency must
be vindicated. " Stanley was an unrelenting enemy
to the religion and liberties of the Irish people
"Graham was of that worst class of Tories, the no-
minal Whigs ;" " Earl Grey was, if possible, a still,
greater enemy to Ireland than either of the former ; '
and the Marquis of Lansdowne is "a hostile
spirit."
What is this but to say to Ministers, " Already
you are securely mine ; but, before I shall be yours,
you must get rid of Lansdowne, and repudiate
without reserve or equivocation the principles of
Grey. You would wear a mask before your country-
men ; you would pretend to be a continuation of Earl
Grel.sgovernment ; but you have taken me for a con-
federate, and my first act shall be to tear your mask
away, and to spurn you for having been so cowardly
and so dishonest as to put it on ?" Mr. O'Connell
has Ministers at his feet, and he kicks and tramples
upon them without mercy. 4thly. Then comes the
repeal of the Union. Mr. O'Connell will suspend
agitation upon this subject, assisting Ministers, or re-
ceiving their assistance, in the meanwhile, to extin-
guish tithe, and openly proclaiming that the machinery
he is about to esbtablish, under the sanction of the
administration, shall be employed to prepare the way
for agitating the question of Repeal hereafter with in-
creased effect. This is the kick potential. This is
truly to trample his new allies in the mire. There is
not one of the present administration but was a party
to the concurrent vote of the two Houses of Parliament,
the object of which was to discountenance and put down
for ever the question of Repeal ; and here within three
or four months we find them in close and strict alliance
with a powerful demagogue, who loudly proclaims to
them, and to all the world, that he will avail himself
of the confederacy to promote the object of repeal.
Whether Ministers intend to abandon their votes, and
become repeaters, or whether they mean to separate
themselves from Mr. O'Connell as soon as they have,
with his assistance, wrought their will upon the Irish
Church, it must, we think, be evident to all mankind
that they are at once the most senseless and the
meanest of the human race. We have now imper-
fectly described the abject position to which Mr.
O'Connell has had the pleasure of reducing his Noble
and Right Honourable Confederates. What is more
interesting, however, to the people of Great Britain is
the position to which, with the aid of these confede-
rates, he threatens to reduce the clergy and the Church
of Ireland. To this part of his project we may re-
turn on a future opportunity. We cannot delay,
however, for a moment to point out that one of the en-
gines he means to establish for the
.persecution of the
Protestant clergy of Ireland is an immense affiliation
of Popish clubs throughout that country, to act in
concert and with the support of a common purse.
We hope we need not point out to the Protestant
people of Great Britain the duty suggested to them
by this part of the Roman Catholic scheme. The
fund of the new persecution will, no doubt, be an
abundant -one.- Confession, penance, absolution, ex-
r,.eme unction; all the resources- of a dark and slavish
superstition, will unite with political rancour, malig-
nity, and ambition to enrich it. And will the Protest-
ants of Great Britain stand by inactive and uncon-
cerned spectators of the persecution t. 9
which the Pro-
testant clergy and people of Ireland are
of legal chicanery and expense the `.boutProtestants ts
be exposed ? So far as the persecution is consist
whole empire have the power of supplyinnga
thus.:eas toy
and effectual counteraction. The Popish fund should
be met by .a Protestant fund of double its amount.
4/2d we have no doubt that it will be so met. The