The Sun.
London, England, 1835-03-30 00:00:00

SPIRIT OF THE PUBLIC JOURNALS

The question on the issue of which depends the
fate of the present Ministry, comes on this day. Lord
John Russell, in the eloquent and manly speech at the
dinner given to him by the Reform Members on Sa-
turday, declared, " I am glad that we have reserved
for this occasion the great trial of strength between
ourselves and our opponents." Ministers have demon-
strated to the country, that without the confidence of
the House of Commons, Government cannot be con-
ducted to any advantage ; and that confidence it is
quite impossible men should ever obtain, who,
as was forcibly observed by his Lordship, " are
so bigotted to the old monopoly, that they
could not even grant the small privilege of making
Masters of Arts to the London University ;" and
that the " removal of the smallest—the least—the
slightest abuse—when the time really comes for tearing
it away from them, is like parting with their heart's
blood ; they cannot yield up abuses and live ; they
cannot make up their minds to part with one." The
most irresolute waverer must be satisfied with the ex-
perience which has been afforded, that good measures
cannot emanate from bad men. Every pretext, how-
ever slight, for supporting Ministers, is now destroyed.
They have had their trial, and the sentence must be no
longer delayed. With respect to the great question of
Appropriation, Lord John Russell, in noticing the
allusion of Lord Morpeth to his exertions in the cause
of religious liberty and reform, observed—
" Gentlemen, I may now say, that among all my day-
dreams of ambition, there has been none which, after that con-
nected with those two subjects, I have cherished so long, or
entertained with such perseverance, as the hope that I might
one day or other be the means of subduing another great
grievance—l mean the grievance of the abuses of the Church
of Ireland—(Tremendous cheering)—abuses which seem to
combine the political usurpation of our close boroughs with
the religious intolerance of our Corporation and Test Acts.
—(Renewed cheering.) It is my hope, Gentlemen, that on
Monday next I shall be able to state such a case to the House
of Commons—to that House of Commons which had been as-
sembled by a special summons from the Crown, and with the
threat of another dissolution ; I say it is my hope that I shall
be able to state such a case as will withstand the attacks of so-
phistry and the violence of declamation, founded upon evi-
dence the force of which our opponents will be unable to
resist."—(Loud cheers.)
The people of these kingdoms are looking forward
to the issue with extreme interest—but not with
anxiety—because they are certain that the good cause
will be triumphant.—Morning Chronicle.

The dinner in•honour of Lord John Russell took
place, as will be seen by our report, at the Freemasons'
Tavern on Saturday. It was said of a celebrated writer
of the last century, that his text was only a peg to
hang his notes upon, and on this occasion Lord J. Rus.
sell's name appears only to have been used as the text
from which a certain number of set speeches were to
emanate, all having one sole object—the restoration of
the Whigs to office. Never was Hamlet's advice to
the players more strikingly exemplified and, with one
exception, (that of Mr. O'Connell,) religiously adhered
to than on this occasion ; and, indeed, lest any one of
the numerous assembly should be induced to intrude
himself upon the meeting who had not a part assigned
him in the drama, or lest those who had should say
more than was down for them, the Noble Chairman,
Lord Morpeth, took especial care, in the outset, to re-
mind the company that the " notice paper being very
crowded, he must request they would confine them-
selves to the toasts set down in the order of the day."
And under this admirable regulation the whole perform-
ance appears to have gone off, as private theatricals
generally do, to the entire satisfaction both of the
audience and performers. After the healths of the
Royal Family had been given and toasted with due
honour, the Noble Chairman gave " The People—for
whose benefit Government was instituted and ought to
be exercised," a truism which no one can be inclined
to dispute, but which has been strangely illustrated in
Whig practice by that singular " boon' the Malthu
sian Poor Law Bill. In apparent echo of this toast,
Lord John Russell described the meeting as "an
assembly for the great and solemn purpose of record-
ing those political sentiments which will tend to the
welfare, the improvement, and happiness of the
country." These are noble objects—objects even at
the mention of which every patriot's bosom must
glow with animation ; but what proofs did this meet-
ing afford, or what proofs have four years of Whig
rule afforded, that there is any greater prospect of these
leas being effected by the return of that party to
ce than by the continuance of the present Ministers in
power ? To all but the mere slaves of party it must
be a matter of great indifference from what hand " the
welfare, the improvement, and happiness of the coun-
try" comes ; and, therefore, unless Lord John Russell
is able to offer us something which Sir Robert Peel
withholds, we know of no fair ground of preference
which the former possesses. Meetings of this kind
are often as fairly tested by what they omit as by what
they say. And though a great deal, in the way of
generalizing, was said as to the state of England and
Ireland, we ask any dispassionate man whether the
two great evils under which " the people" of these two
countries are labouring were so much as touched upon
by any of the performers in the parts assigned them
upon the occasion ? In one country the state of the
currency ; in the other, the absence of all statutable
means for the relief of the poor, the decrepit, and
the aged. These objects are severally of infinitely
more consequence to these two countries than whe-
ther the Whigs shall return to office ; but who would
create the strongest grounds for that return, by
adopting objects with which " the welfare, the im-
provement and happiness" of " the people" are so
inseparably connected ? One word in relation to an-
other omission at this meeting, and we have done with
it for the present. Where was the once celebrated
Whig toast, " The Liberty of the Press—the air we
breathe ; without which we die !" How came this
toast omitted from the crowded " Notice Paper," from
the well-regulated " Order of the Day ?" Must we
say that it was because the inconsistency between the
sentiment and the practice would have been glaring
even for Whig gullibility to swallow ? For it must
have been given in the presence of, and drank by the
very Whig Attorney-General who had prosecuted the
Press for only repeating what a Whig Lord and a
Whig Commoner had said with impunity. It must
have been given in the presence of, and drank by the
very leader of the party in whose honour the company
were assembled, and who had himself, within eight-
and-forty hours of their meeting, meditated an attack
upon the Press, which prudence, not inclination, had
compelled him to abandon.—Morning Herald.

We refer our readers to the Common Council Re-
port which appears irk another column. From thence
it will be seen that the city of London has done itself
the high honour of anticipating reform, by adopting in
its own case a principle which cannot fail to be ex-
tended to similar corporations throughout the king-
dom. The Common Council has declared that the
election of aldermen shall in future be periodical—
not for life. Every one who considers the question
with an impartial mind will rejoice in this decision.
The servility of aldermen is not a new complaint, nor
is the prominent cause of that servility a new discovery.
Election for life was in its very nature a discharge in
full from their constituents, and accordingly we find that
the aldermen, as a body, have never omitted to take ad-
vantage of it. Election for life is a delusion, a cheat ;
it is representation without responsibility. But it is
needless for us to argue here what was so well argued
in the Court by Mr. Charles Pearson and others, and
what, in point of fact, is written in the history of the
Court of Aldermen, that the circumstance of their
being chosen permanently, not periodically, cut off the
bond between them and their constituents, and, by
making them independent of the public, made them the
slaves of Ministers or of their own sordid pursuits. As
for the argument of Sir Peter Laurie and those who
supported the existing rule, in favour of what they
were pleased to call the independence of Magistrates,
it amounts to little more than a play upon words. It
is true that, in the sense we have just hinted at, elec-
tion for life has rendered that class of Magistrates in-
dependent of their constituents. But is such the only
independence to be sought for in an Alderman and a
Magistrate ? Is independence of the Crown or of the
Minister of the day, or of the dictates of grovelling
avarice or ambition, no object to be attained even at the
risk of some sacrifice to popularity ? True indepen-
dence of mind is not the creature of irresponsible office;
and let the adversaries of popular suffrage say what
they will, the people are not yet so depraved as to ren-

der the honest discharge of one's duty a vain appeal
to their understandings for support. But the question
which was long since decided in the minds of impartial
men is now decided by the vote of the Common Coun-
cil on the part of the Corporation of London. We
congratulate the public on such a result ; and we hope
that his Majesty's Ministers will not only receive the
particular suggestion with favour, but will adopt the
spirit of that suggestion in dealing with the whole of
that extensive subject included under the title of Mu-
nicipal Reform.—Morning Herald.
At the moment at which we write, we are not aware
either what may be the determination to which Sir Robert
Peel has come respecting Lord John Russell's motion this
evening, or what may have been the complexion of the
meeting of his friends, which was held on Saturday last,
and which was called by Lord Francis Egerton, as well as
held in his house in Cleveland-square. We have reason
to believe, however, that Sir Robert Peel, though with a
proud disdain of the bigotted party which gave him a place
to disgrace him, and then deserted him—will " stand the
hazard of the die," and be thankful to the Liberals for re-
lieving him from a burthen which he is not only unable
to bear, but which he now finds to be intolerable ;
while, with regard to the meeting at Lord Francis Eger-
ton's, it is distinctly understood—though we cannot
vouch for the fact—neither to have had, nor to have de-
served, the countenance of Sir R. Peel—to have been
feebly attended—and to have ended in nothing beyond a
mere determination to make the strongest possible opposi-
tion to Lord John Russell's motion on the Irish Church.
We have been informed, also, that the name of the Premier
was " taken in vain" by more than one of those present at
the meeting, and that the breach which previously existed
between him and the more bigotted part of his faction, was
anything but closed by the speeches which were made upon
the subject. But, however this may be, it is quite certain
that there is no unanimity in the Tory camp, and that its
forces are merely kept together by a sense of common dan-
ger, and a consciousness that when they cease to act in con-
cert, they will share the fate which they have so richly de-
served.—Morning Advertiser.
The meeting of the Opposition on Saturday last, at a
dinner given to Lord John Russell, was meant for an ap-
propriate flourish of trumpets to the more business-like
proceeding of this day. If the coming substance corre-
spond with the preceding shadow—if we may infer the de-
scription of political matter which is to be laid by the Noble
Lord before the nation through its representatives this
evening, from the prefatory notices with which he favoured
his audience in the course of Saturday's speech—it is clear
that Sir Robert Peel will not have much trouble in con-
vincing the Noble Lord himself, that, bad as was the din-
ner exhibition, the whole affair ought to have terminated
with it, and not have been prolonged into a
_second, and

more signal, and far more discreditable and irrecoverable
failure. We now make no allusion to that particular ques-
tion, of how the account may stand between Ministers and
their assailants, as to the numbers on this night's or to-

morrow's division, with a full assurance that the sole
object of Lord John Russell and his followers is to render
the discussion a mere peg, whereon to hang a division ; and
to use the exposition of numbers, not as a record or an evi-
dence of the preponderancy of argument, but as a coun-
terpoise to it. With that persuasion strong upon us, we
shall rather address the common sense and right feelings of
the country, than the shallow selfishness of those who

regard that country as at once a stage for their antics, and
a prey for their cupidity. Lord Morpeth, in preluding to
the health of the Opposition Leader, attempted to kick
aside as scarcely worthy of notice, the subject of those
" great and mutual differences" which he knew it was the
custom of late to impute to the Whig-Radical party.
And pray, Lord Morpeth, are there no great and
mutual differences amongst that heterogeneous and in-
describable menagerie of animals, drawn from all quar-
ters of the earth, and invested with such an in-
exhaustible variety of habits, instincts, and constitu-
tions ? Is there no mutual difference between Lord
Brougham, for instance, whose health was somewhat
ironically toasted at the dinner, and who maintains the po-
litical impossibility of transferring any portion of the reve-
nues, now or any time enjoyed by the Protestant Churcl.
of Ireland, to any but uses immediately connected witl,
that Church—and Mr. Ellice, or others of the Uultra
Liberal section of the late Ministry, who were notoriousl
in favour of such an appropriation ? Is there no " dif
Terence" between Lord John Russell, who now comes for-
ward as the champion of an appropriation of surplu,
Church revenues to general purposes of instruction.
whatever he may have thought, and to whatever con-
trary opinion he may have pledged himself (as we hay(
shown he did) last year, and Lord Lansdowne, who
declared himself in the House of Lords to be nearly
of the same creed as the late learned and consistent
Chancellor ? But Lord Morpeth's mode of dealing
with his own allusion to " mutual differences" was as drop
as the introduction of such a ticklish subject. His Lord-
ship affirmed that their principles were such as would never
induce them to yield to the lure of temptation, or to the
"facility of compromise." Then let us ask, how in the name
of Heaven are these men to carry on their projected Go-
vernment ? If, as is admitted, and indeed unquestionable,
they be split into almost numberless subdivisions of senti-
ment, how, by what miracle, can they form or conduct a
Government, without agreeing to compromises in a dozen
directions ? Lord Morpeth, to be sure, boasts that for a
given purpose, and up to a certain point, they will settle their
discords by swallowing them, inasmuch as, without departing
From their opinions, they " will know how to marshal theit
forces, and to present in front of the foe an unconquer-
able phalanx." We do confess that such, and no other,
is the sort of concord which is likely to exist between
these patriots. They can just manage so far to get rid of
their abhorrence for each other's principles and persons as
may suffice to bring up their troops to the attack, and to
co-operate until the tellers shall have reported the ayes
and noes. But with the division all harmony is at an end.
Thence arise divisions of another kind, and in countless
multitudes. The enemy is, beaten, but then begins the
war of rapacity and plunder—then do the spears of the
" unconquerable phalanx," and the joints of the multifarious.
tails, turn inwards on each other, and a scene of disgusting
strife and anarchy succeeds the fruitless triumph. They
are not, we know, prepared for this ; but is the truth of
the prediction doubtful ? Is it physically possible that
materials so discordant should cohere for a single month
Lord J. Russell, however, sings a note more peculiarly his
own. He calls " measures not men, a piece of quackery."
Beyond all doubt it would be difficult to determine whether
" measures" or" men" would be the standard of opinion least
favourable to Lord J. Russell. As for the Reform Bill, it was
none of his work—don't let him flatter himself that he was the
parent of that law. He was but the midwife who ushered
it into existence, as it devolved upon Lord Althorp to be
the dry nurse. Lord John Russell's real progeny was the
Marriage Bill, followed up by his tilting match with the
Bishop of Exeter, wherein his Lordship was so cruelly un-
horsed and immersed in mud at the first onset. When the
Noble Lord therefore exclaims against the quackery ofjudg-
ing by measures, we can fully understand and feel for him.
But then he will insist that if he mid his late colleagues
had been tried by their measures, they would have done vast
things for the people. Why, were there ever so many abor-
tive attempts at legislation made under such favourable cir-
cumstances, and with such multiplied and shameful failures?
Was it not the laughingstock of the whole country, that
session after session expired without any measure which
presented the slightest difficulty being put into a business-
like or passable shape ? Yet Lord John Russell ventures to
pretend that Sir R. Peel and his colleagues have dissap-
pointed the people, and done nothing. Is the appointment
and completion of the English Church Report nothing ?
Is the Dissenters' Marriage Bill—a Gorgon, doubtless, in
poor Lord John Russell's eyes—nothing? Or the English and
Irish Tithe Bills—measures so incomparably more States-
manlike and effective than any legislative effort of the late
Ministers—are they nothing ? We aver in the face of our
countrymen, that within three months after the Conserva-
tives acceded to office, there have been more satisfactory
proofs afforded of their ability to give " good government"
to England, than by the Whigs in more than that number
of years ; nor was there ever anything more, we had almost
said unprincipled, than the allegation of the Noble Lord, that
the present Government displays a system of " undisguised
oppression abroad." Whom has the Duke of Wel-
lington oppressed, whose tyranny has he abetted since he
came into power ? Is it true, is there a particle of truth in
it, that the Conservative Government has betrayed the
slightest tendency to favour Don Carlos, Don Miguel, or
the Dutch Court, in its relation with the King of Belgium ?
The reverse of all this is fact ; it was known to Lord J.
Russell to be positive fact when he employed such injurious
language towards the present Ministry. He knew that all
the free representative Governments have expressed the
most cordial sense of obligation for the kindness and
friendship exercised towards them by the Foreign-office since
it came under the guidance of the Duke of Wellington, and
that our alliance with the French Court, and our intimacy
with that great power, are at least as perfect and as honourable
to Great Britain as ever they were under the bland supre-
macy of the ex-member for Hampshire. Not one single
charge could Lord John Russell produce against Sir Robert
Peel and the Conservatives, but that they did not fight
under his own factious banners ; nor was it necessary for
the Noble Lord's purpose to establish any such ground of
censure. His object was a muster, not a debate. The
same will be this day's course of action. A bright prospect
is for England, should such men and such motives gain the
ascendant over her. But that part of Lord John Russell's
speech which refers to the charter of the London Univer-
sity is more sneakingly and pitifully unfair than language
can adequately describe. He reproaches the Ministers for
not having acceded to Mr. Tooke's motion,—he puts for-

ward their conduct on that occasion as a crowning iniquity.
Now, what was the motion? Why, a motion for an
Address to the Crown for a Charter, "as approved,
in the year 1831, by the then Law Officers of
the Crown." Who were those Law Officers ? They
were the Law Officers of the Whig Administra-
tion, and that Administration being in office in 1831,
and continuing in office till November, 1834, had neverthe-
less not procured nor advised the grant of the charter so
approved by their own law officers. Lord John Russell was
one of that Whig Administration, and yet he has the face
to prefer such a charge against his successors in the Mi-
nistry ! We recommend this to Lord Morpeth's notice,
as a feature for his next " premeditated impromptu" upon
the honour of the House of Russell. By the way, talking
once more of Lord Morpeth, we must not forget his compli-
ment to Lord Althorp (now Spencer) which was almost an
insult. Lord Morpeth insinuated by his quotation that the su-
preme pleasure of his Noble Friend was either listening to
the bellowing of oxen, or wallowing in lazy sleep. And
this is the eulogy of the " parfizit honznte" of the Whigs
We have only time to turn the reader's attention to an in
telligent letter, signed " An Englishman," which contains
some pointed and just reproaches at the idleness or un-
manly indifference which the professed friends of Ministers
exhibit in their lax attendance to support Sir Robert Peel.
who is thus left all but alone to fight battles wherein they
are more interested as a party than he has ever felt himself
as a man. There are sonic further observations worth re-
flecting upon, as to the composition of the House of Com-
mons, and the relative strength, if duly managed, of Mi-
nisters and their opponents.—Times.
It is with a feeling of sincere regret that we find our..
selves compelled by a sense of duty to notice in any
other terms than those of unqualified commendation an
article in the columns of our orthodox and conscientious
contemporary, the John Bull. In his comments on the
first report of the Church Reform Commissioners, that able
and consistent advocate of our Ecclesiastical Establishment
has, in our estimation, suffered his zeal to hurry him into
a severity of animadversion, more calculated to injure than
to advance the cause of which there are few more ardent
or more able defenders than himself :--

,‘ We no more doubt that the complete overthrow of the
Established Church will follow upon the execution of the plan
now suggested for its reformation than we ever doubted that
the passing of the Reform Bill sealed the fate of the Mo-
narchy. A few years of uneasy existence both the Church
and the Monarchy may drag on ; possibly, probably, the lat-
ter may endure through the present generation ' • but both the
one and the other are now as certainly doomed as if a hand
had written their downfall on the wall of our excellent Mo-
narch's banquetting-room."
We hope for better things. That we have fallen upon
evil times ; that the Church and the Throne are both
threatened by a combination of traitors, schismatics, and
infidels ; and that to the selfish and short-sighted policy, to
the scheming ambition of the Whigs this state of things is
in a great measure imputable, we are firmly persuaded ;
and therefore it is that we rejoice to see the preliminary
arrangements for that reform in the Church which has be-
come inevitable, advancing rapidly towards a consummation,
under the guidance of men in the purity of whose motives,
and in the soundness of whose views, we have the most un-
hesitating confidence. To us there is no proposition
in Euclid the evidence of which is more incontrovertible
than this—that if the Church be not speedily and
effectually reformed by her friends she will be de-
stroyed by her enemies. With this conviction we
ire prepared to receive with gratitude the recom-
mendations of the Commissioners, because we know that
they are honest and enlightened ; because we have the su-
pererogatory security that their affections—that their inte•
rests, temporal and eternal—are deeply engaged in the
sacred cause ; and because we are, for these reasons, satis-
fied that nothing will be sacrificed that, in reference to the
interests of the Church herself, ought to be saved. There
is another species of moral evidence which induces us to re-
tard with confidence the first report of the Commissioners.
['he whole of the Radical press, from the sarcastic and
facetious Examiner, to the vulgar Jacobin of the Specta-
tor, or, lower still, to the canting conventicler of the
Globe, are unanimous in their reprobation of the report.
['his we hold to be decisive in its favour. That there are
;mmense inequalities in the relative value of the sees, as
.vell as in the extent of their respective jurisdictions,
and that those inequalities are practically productive of
great inconvenience and injustice, is acknowledged ;
Jut we cannot admit that, from the principle of the
:neasures recommended by the Commissioners, to ob-
viate or diminish the evil any such inference as that which
)ur respected contemporary has drawn can legitimately be
leduced. The Commissioners have recommended that cer-
tain estates which have hitherto belonged to the wealthier
iees, should, under certain restrictions, be applied to aug-
.nent the revenues of the poorer. _ _ _

" In plain language the people of England are informed
that, whatever has hitherto been the case, it is desirable for the
`uture that Church property should be regarded as a mass, of
,vhich the entire disposal is to be placed in the hands of the
Legislature. Who, then, can any longer affect to doubt that
Church property is public property ?"
Now, without prejudice to the high esteem which we en-
tertain for the intellectual powers as well as for the prin-
ciples of our contemporary, we must enter our protest
against the correctness of this inference. For what is the
:ogical connection between the premises and the conclusi. n?
The Commissioners have recommended that a partial altera-
tion should be made in the distribution of a small por-
tion of the episcopal revenues ; but by what logical
process we are enabled to infer that therefore the entire dis-
posal of Church property is to be placed in the hands of the
Legislature ? or how are we justified in concluding that
because a part of the episcopal revenue is transferred from
one Bishop to another Bishop that therefore all Church
property is public property ? Had the possibility of such
an inference being drawn from their recommendation oc-
curred to the Primate or the Premier, can our esteemed
contemporary believe for a moment that they would have
affixed their names to the report ? or can he suppose that
the Commissioners conscientiously sanctioned a proposition
involving a justification of sacrilege and robbery ? The
conclusion which our esteemed contemporary has drawn
From the rapidity with which the Commissioners have ac•
complished thus much of their task appears to us equally
open to objection, and hardly consistent with his usual
candour and charity. Is there anything forced or un-
reasonable in supposing that the Primate, that the
Premier, that their Episcopal and Ministerial coadju-
tors had severally and maturely considered the details
Of the subject which the Commission called on them to
investigate and report on ? And, if not, what is there so
very " extraordinary" in the shortness of the period in
which those zealous Commissioners have reported on one
branch of their subject ? There is also another consi-
deration which, it may well be assumed, must have stimu-
lated them to accelerate the progress of their investigation.
We must recollect, and the Commissioners could not for-
get, that any beneficial result from their labours would
depend on their being completed during the continuance of
the Conservative Administration in oiece, against which a
herd of sordid and sanguinary Papists, of " Gentlemen
from Ireland"—a different genius from " Irish Gentlemen"
—had combined with the parties honteuses of England ;
a leprous assemblage of swindling Greeks, of white-
washed convicts, of political quacks and political
adventurers, of decoy ducks for gambling houses,
of reputed thieves, notorious liars, and stigmatized
cowards, were actively and incessantly engaged in exciting
the passions of the people on this very subject. We have
most reluctantly stated that we look on the opinions put
forth by the John Bull of yesterday as unsound and inex-
pedient, and we have done so because we believe it to be of
vital importance to the sacred cause that the impartial and
dispassionate among ail denominations of Christians should
be convinced that Church of England men in general,
though affectionately and reverentially attached to the
essential doctrines which she teaches, and regarding with
the utmost respect the discipline which she prescribes ;
though humbly trusting to live under her benign sway, and
ready, if need be, to die in her defence ; are not, neverthe-
less, so blind or so bigoted as to refuse to amend or to correct
those abuses or imperfections which the lapse of succes-
sive ages, the imperfection of all that is human as contra-
distinguished from that which is essentially divine in her
institutions, or the passions and interests of infirm or per-
verse individuals may gradually have introduced. That
the present Commissioners, ecclesiastical or lay, would sui-
cidally sanction, or inadvertently permit, any alteration
tending to impair the efficiency of the establishment, we
believe to be, under any circumstances, impossible. Under
a Whig, or Radico-Whig, Administration our feelings and
our language would be widely different. In the specula-
tive discussions and practical plans of those unscrupulous
Legislators, they seem to assume that they are at liberty
to commence the work of ecclesiastical reform, as they
call it, as if no ecclesiastical institutions already existed.
They would not repair and restore the venerable
edifice of our Church, but sacrilegiously would over-
throw the sacred structure, and then indulge their
presumption and caprice in erecting some tawdry mo-
nument of ignorance and impiety. Our own conviction is
that by no class of persons is Church Reform more sincerely
desired than by Churchmen, and that by no other class of
persons are the great principles on which it should be ef-
fected so likely to be honestly and judiciously applied. The
enlightened members of the establishment are impressed
with a conviction that important changes ought to take
place, and will take place, in our ecclesiastical polity ; and
we have no doubt that, appreciating correctly the moral
necessity as well as the moral fitness of the change, the
pious and enlightened Prelates of the Church of England
will spontaneously assume the initiative, as far as in them
lies, and thus gracefully direct those progressive ameliora-
tions which it might be dangerous, were it practicable, to
retard, and which it would be impious, were it possible, to
prevent.—MorningPost.