The Sun.
London, England, 1834-07-07 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, MONDAY, JULY 7, 1884,

lity liberally granted by free governments to exile and
even to guilt must not with impunity be perverted to
the means of aggression against a friendly neighbour
and congenial institutions. Policy and public opinion
alike forbid such supineness. LOUIS PHILIP will not
fail to imitate and to repay the good offices of Eng-
land and Spain in removing CHARLES X. and BouR-
MONT from places of retreat too contiguous and too
convenient for plots against his government. He will
not leave the Spanish rebels unmolested to renew their
plots and direct their insurrections from the southern
provinces of France. The moral and intellectual qua-
lities of the three Pretenders, on which it would be
ungenerous to expatiate, are, fortunately for the inte-
rests of freedom and the quiet of mankind, a great
security for the representative Governments of France,
Portugal, and Spain, and some advantage results even
from the wickedness of such instruments as MORENO
and CALOMARDE. The public indignation has been
roused by their enormities, to act the part of vigilant
police on their movements ; and wherever they wander,
or whatever the disguise they assume, they have
abused power in their own country much too mani-
festly to be allowed to plot in secrecy or safety further
mischief in any other. The power of evil is palsied
by the imbecility of those for whom it is exerted, or
the notorious character and disgusting courses of those
agents who are disposed to exert it.

If any circumstance could be more favourable to the
Government than the secession of Mr. STANLEY, it
is the position in which the Tories have now placed
themselves. They are both of a piece. The one. in
part led to the other, and by a singular concurrence
of circumstances, the celebration of the Oxford revels
came just in time to drown amidst the din any mis-
givings to which common sense, or prudence, or
the welfare of the country might give rise. The
Tories have taken their position, and make their
stand on the grand question—whether the abuses
of the Irish Church are to be removed. They talk
loudly of spoliation and robbery, and the security of
the Church, but they know well that these are only
terms employed to blind the people, and they will find
to their experience that the people view them in that
light, and attach just as much weight to them
as they did to the phrases " corporation rob-
bery," " destruction of the constitution," and
" subversion of social order," which seasoned and
gave zest to almost every speech delivered against the
great object of their wishes, Parliamentary reform.
To make this evident a few ficts will suffice. The
great objects of the bill which they oppose, are to
abolish tithes and proportion the income of the Pro-
testant clergy to the duties performed. If there is one
proposition more indisputable than another, it is
this. And what are the- opinions of the people of the
United Kingdom on the question ? Scotland has re-
corded her opinion in a way which sets every doubt at
rest. Nearly two hundred years ago the English
Government said to Scotland as the High Church
party, if in power, would say to Ireland—The estab-
lished religion of the two countries shall be Episco-
pacy, and no clergy but the clergy of that creed shall
be paid out of the tithes. And did Scotland
acquiesce, or did she, like Ireland, meet the Go-
vernment half-way ? No such thing. She said,
Presbyterianism is the religion of the people ;
the established clergy shall be Presbyterian, and
to them, and to no other, shall the Church
property go ; and in the true spirit of independence
she declared war against Episcopacy, girded herself
for the contest, and finally triumphed. The English
people have long felt the grievances to which they are
subjected by the tithe system, and the unequal distri-
bution of Church property, and wait only for the settle-
ment of the more urgent question—the Reform of the
Irish Church—to demand redress. Will they then
support measures which would not only prop up that
Church with all its grievances of tithes and non-resi-
dent and sinecure clergy, but form a barrier against every
improvement in their, own ? Any assistance from them
is as hopeless as assistance from the seven millions of
Irish and English Catholics, and to whom then would
Mr. STANLEY and his party go ? to a party that hate
him more cordially than they hate Earl GREY ; to
" the contemptible fragments of a broken faction."
Were it not for the confusion it would create in the
country, and the unspeakable injury it would cause to
the Established Church, we would pray that the expe-
riment might be made. We should like to see Mr.
STANLEY leader in one House, and Sir R. PEEL
in the other with a dissolution of Parliament, and
what then ? The Dissenters, the Catholics, the
Whigs would rise to a man. The Treasury influ-
ence would return a few more Tory members than
now, but they would only be as a drop in the bucket,
and more than counterbalanced by the determination
of a party goaded to resistance. The House of Com-
mons would be more unmanageable than ever; Ireland
would present but one unvaried scene of confusion—no
Coercion Bill would pass—no, nor any government mea-
sure, and "the contemptible fragment of a broken faction"
would call aloud to their enemies to take the reins of
government, and to save them from destruction. Lord
JOHN RUSSELL, in his admirable, straight-forward
speech, said " they might keep their places for two or
three uneasy sessions, and get through two or three
bloody winters." They could not get through one,
even cheered and hallooed on as they would be by all
the Tory and all the renegade liberal press. The press
is utterly powerless when opposed to common sense and
justice. What have all the furious articles, all the violent
denunciations against the Poor Laws Bill produced after
long conception and painful labour ? A miserable
abortion. Any attempt to prop up such an Adminis-
tration would have the same result, and the conse-
quence would be that the Whigs would be restored to
power, and, under the restraint of the Radicals, grant,
at the same price, like the Sybil, only a third of the
original offer. Have the Tories no ominous fore-
bodings from the result of the division and the nature
of the assistance they received on Friday night ? Have
they not the sense to see, that of the three parties
who supported them, some object to the bill because
they wish to put the tithes into their own pockets—
others object because they hate the Church, and pray
for its downfall ; and- the remainder object from fac-
tious motives, and are led on, too, by a man who has
committed an act of political profligacy—who, after
remaining for four years on habits of the strictest
intimacy with his colleagues—after asserting that they
were agreed on all points but one, and that on all
tu, up port,
unfolds
turnste
roundother mupeoansutrieisemthieny should
orht a vf
fortnights
describes his friends as the
rthniisghs
secrets of the Cabinet, and
the human race, and surpassed not
most imbecile of
thieves -We wish the Tories joy of such asso-
in wickedness, but .;n dexterity only by shoplifters and