The Sun.
London, England, 1835-06-29 00:00:00

tants hold them. But what is this to the purpose? Is the
danger diminished, because the Catholics, as a body, may
be as humane, as civilized, and as free from crime, and
from criminal feelings and intentions as the Protestants
may be? We admit they are : but still we point, and we
insist that the Catholics shall turn their eyes, to the bloody
deeds which a barbarous peasantry, inflamed by political
harangues from the very altar of their God, have been urged
to commit. This, then, is the nature of the danger to be
obviated—the danger which Lord Morpeth, speaking
less plainly, professes to obviate in his Bill. And how ?
Why, by making his measure, as he thinks, retrospec-
tive, not prospective. He says that in every parish in
which, according to the census of 1831, there were not more
than 50 Protestants, the presentation, on the avoidance,
shall be suspended. Be it so, for the sake of argument.
Now, suppose a benefice having in it in 1831 only 49 Pro-
testants, and suppose the incumbent to die either by the
pike or pistol, or by a natural death. The presentation is
suspended, and the utmost the Bill allows is to appoint in
the incumbent's stead a curate at 751. a-year. Again, sup-
pose a neighbouring benefice, containing, according to the
census of 1831, the number of 51 Protestants, and suppose
that from any cause, whether violent or natural (we would
rather take the latter—say famine, or cholera, or emigra-
tion), the number is reduced to 20, or to 10, or to 5,—a1l
and each very possible occurrences. Suppose, also, that the
first-mentioned benefice retains its number of 49 Protestants
a—not at least an improbable supposition. Thus you will
have one benefice with 49 Protestants and a curate at
751. a-year ; while in another you will have but five Pro-
testants and an incumbent with 3001. a-year. Would
such an anomaly be tolerated ? Of course not ; there
would be clamour for a change—for such a change as would
bring the benefice which flourished in 1831 into the spi-
ritual Schedule A, and it would be impossible to resist that
clamour, because if there was any sense in the arrangement
with regard to the one benefice, the other ought to share
the same fate, and would inevitably share it. To say,
therefore, that the measure of Lord Morpeth is, in this
matter, retrospective, is either foolish or false, or both.
The danger, consequently, which Lord Morpeth proposes
to guard against, still threatens. There is, however, a
point of view in which the prospective operation of the
Bill, and the reason of its prospectiveness, deserve to be
most seriously and carefully considered. The Bill is not
to come into operation until the present incumbents die
off. Now the Irish Bishops have doubtless the power
of dispensing with the residence of any incumbent if
they think fit. But that will net be sufficient. It will be
necessary to enact in the Bill that it shall not come into
operation until a given period, and that, before that period
elapse, the Bishops shall (it must be imperative) dispense
with the residence of every incumbent, and that their places
shall be filled by curates. If not, and the danger exist,
they will certainly be popped or piked off in order to bring
their benefices udder the operation of the Bill, whereas
there will be no such temptation to murder a curate, be-
cause his death will not make an avoidance of the bene-
fice. One word as to the reform effected by this Bill,
in reference to stipends. A curate, that is to say, the
actual parson of the parish (for there is to be no one
above or with him) is to have at the utmost 751. a year.
Lord John Russell defends this by a case in which the
incumbent received 2,000/. a year, and employed two cu-
rates, at 751. a year each, to perform the duties of the
parish. Here, however, was given the sum of 1501. for the
spiritual care of the parish, whereas Lord John Russell will
give but 751.,—50 that the incumbent, bad as he was and
niggardly, was not so bad, nor so niggardly, by one-half as
Lord John Russell is. We give Lord John Russell there-
fore the full benefit of his illustration. This part of the
Bill, however, must not be passed over so. It has ever
been considered by every man who has spoken or writ-
ten on the subject of Church Reform, that the crying sin
and grievance of the Church system was, that the working
clergy—the small vicars and smaller curates—were so ill
paid. The case of the 751. curate or vicar has been adduced
usque ad nauseam. This was and is the vice of the system ;
and what do the Reformers propose ? Why, they propose to
take the vice—the acknowledged and denounced vice
(denounced by themselves with " damnable iteration ")--as
the foundation of their new system. As reasonably might
they in the Reform Bill have taken nomination as the
principle of representation, for that was the chief vice of
the old Parliamentary system, as the inadequate payment
of the working clergy is the vice of the Ecclesiastical sys-
tem. Admirable - Reformers ! There is but one other
point connected with the arrangements made by the Bill
which we shall notice on the present occasion, and it in-
volves one of the grossest inconsistencies that even the
Whigs ever fell into. In regard to tithes, they give the
lay tithe owner 68/. ss. for the 100/. To the clerical
tithe owner they give 73/. ss. for the 1001. This is their
course as to tithes. Now see how they act as to the
general produce of benefices. They abstract from the reve-
nues of all livings in the gift of ecclesiastics or of the King,
every farthing above 3001. a year (after the death of the pre-
sent incumbents.) In the case of lay owners of advowsons
they do the same thing, only they give compensation .to
the laymen for the difference between 3001. and the actual
produce of the benefice. Why ? Because the one advow-
son has been purchased, and the other generally (it may
have been) has not. The same is true of tithes ; and it
there be anything of reason or of justice in rrgard to the
arrangement as to the produce or a lay benefice, the same
arrangement should be made with regard to lay tithes.
These are the only points we think it necessary to notice
at present. Of the Bill generally our opinion. must be tole-
rably well known. We reserve the further expression of it
to a future opportunity, recommending at the same time
those of our Ministerial, and therefore hostile contempora-
ries, who talk of " renegades," " tergiversators," &c., to be
so good as to compare this Bill with the speeches, and pro-
fessions, and practices of the Whigs in times bygone,—ay,
bygone but a single year.—Tinzes.
The absolute necessity for the adoption of a system of
poor laws for Ireland is so obvious, that we should be
astonished at the fact that the Legislature is so slow to
approach the subject, were it not equally obvious that in
this instance the interests of the Irish Legislators and of
the Irish people are wholly at variance. It is to be ex-
pected that the Irish Aristocracy should seek to keep their
properties untouched, even though they should by so
doing send thousands and tens of thousands to the grave—
victims to absolute famine in the midst of plenty. Any
other course would be inconsistent with the "even tenor of
their way," but is it wise on their part to allow those who
are in their own conduct, and in the management of their
estates, the most conspicuous illustrators of all the miseries
to which the peasantry of that country are subjected, to
appear in the van as advocates against a system of poor
law—the only bar which can now be flung between the
ruthless oppression of the landed Aristocracy and the ab-
solute starvation of the people of Ireland ? Is it wise that
the Earl of Limerick should be the man to oppose such a
measure ? Has the Noble Earl no sense of the lesson
which he is by such a course reading to the people ? Is it wise
to instruct the people that they must starve because their
preservation from famine would lessen the revenues of the
Earl of Limerick and of the other landed proprietors, who,
being Legislators, will legislate for themselves ? Is it right
or proper to hold up such a conspicuous proof that the in-
terests of property and of labour are at variance ? These
are questions which it would be well if the Earl of Li-
merick would think on, before he again opposes himself to
the last refuge of a starving people. The Noble Earl
talked of poor laws being mischievous, because calculated
to dry up the sources of private charity, which he described
as being great in that country, and he spoke too from an
avowed knowledge of it from many years' residence. With-
out stopping to inquire whether that residence was not
prior to 1800, we will ask what the Noble Earl himself has
done in aid of the charity of those who vainly seek to miti-
gate the terrible lot of suffering humanity in Ireland. We
have still fresh in our recollection the statements transmitted
to us by our correspondent, who, during the autumn of
last year, took singular pains to ascertain the state of the
poor of Ireland, and from those statements we can affirm
that the Earl of Limerick has an advantage beyond that of
of any or all of his compeers in the British Senate. In the
whole British Empire there is not a man who has upon his
own estate so wide a field for the exercise of the best attri-
butes of our nature—so inexhaustible a supply of the worst
and most appalling scenes of human misery upon which to
exercise the benevolence of his own. Will it be credited
by those who see the Earl of Limerick thus opposing him-
self to the adoption of Poor Laws for Ireland, that in the
city from which he takes his title—nay, that in one parish
of that city, in and around which the great bulk of his
property is situated, there are between 6,000 and 7,000
people in a state of starvation ! We are wrong, per-
haps, in saying there are those numbers, for doubtless,
long ere this, the system has done its worst for them,
and they have passed away to swell the list of victims
to the heartless landed Aristocracy of Ireland. We
may, however, take it for granted, that their places
have been supplied, and that there may still be seen
upon the-property of the Noble Earl the same scenes our
correspondent witnessed last autumn. Wretches starving
and naked—positively naked, in empty and falling houses
(for which they nevertheless paid rents out of the profits
of their beggary—some 2d, others 3d, and some 4d per
week), without fire or food, lying upon rotten straw—the
only furniture of the rooms, except in one instance, in which
he perceived a large stone that appeared to serve for a seat.
There he beheld people dying around him, whether from
cold or hunger, it was difficult to say, so appalling was the
want of food and raiment. Unable to move, aged people lay
upon little heaps of mouldering straw, their only hope of
supporting existence for another day being the success of
some beggar who might be fortunate enough to get a po-
tato more than he could himself devour. But, worse even
alit—the wretches who are thus famished must lie
where their horrible death has overtaken them, until their

half-putrid corpses send forth pestilence to the survivors.
There is no public or parish fund to bury them, or if there be
the matter is neglected, and a most benevolent gentleman,who
exerted himself deeply to mitigate the sufferings of the
people, finding no other remedy for this evil, has been ob-
liged to tell the unfortunate wretches to expose the bodies
of the dead at nights, to lay them in the public streets, be-
cause then somebody must see to their burial. It is very
true for the Earl of Limerick that charity prevails to a
great extent in Ireland, and it is equally true that the feel-
ings of kindred go far to lessen the number who must
otherwise swell the catalogue of misery ; but what does
this argument amount to ? Does the Noble Earl himself
subscribe liberally to the relief of the poor ? Does he, in
fact, subscribe a single 101. in the year to the aid of any or
all of the charitable institutions of Limerick—we would
ask the Noble Earl, if by taking advantage of the compe-
tition for land in Ireland, the landlords let their estates at a
rental which the whole produce will scarcely pay, and then
sell the produce to England to pay that rental, leaving
nothing to the peasant for his labour. We would ask
hire if, by such a course, they starve the peasantry, by
what right do they fling the support of that peasantry upon
those who have, it appears, more charity than them-
selves ? If the landlords should have supported those
people out of the produce of the soil, and instead of doing
so, have driven them to beg for charity, it is my Lord the
Earl of Limerick, et hoz, genus ovine, who are really the re-
ceivers of the charity thus given. They are the beggars,
and not the wretches to whom it is in the first instance
given. When we find such persons standing up in the
Legislature to oppose a relief to the poor, as it is called, but,
in reality, a measure to save them from famine, and their
oppressors from further crime, we think it our duty to show
that, whether actuated by self-interest or not, at all events
self-interest is there to actuate. It might be as well for
those who are opposed to the introduction of poor laws to
select for their advocates gentlemen whose estates present
a less harrowing spactacle than is afforded by the Limerick
and Bruff estates of the Earl of Limerick ; and to the
House of Peers we would only say, " Instead of listening
to the Noble Earl, look to his estates ; and if one glance
does not convince you of the necessity of poor laws for Ire-
land, nothing that can be said in Parliament will ever bring
you to that conclusion."—Morning Herald.
The press of other important matter, and the late hour
at which the debate terminated, prevented us from noticing
on Saturday morning, the second test of the Melbourne
Ministry—the admirable measure of Irish Church Reform,
proposed by Lord Morpeth to the House of Commons on
Friday night. The chief features of the Bill are the con-
version of the existing Tithe composition into a rent charge
of 701. to the 100/., deducting 6d. in the pound for the
cost of collecting, and adding five per cent from the perpe-
tuity fund to the clerical proprietor ; thus giving 73/. ss.
per cent. to the ecclesiastical, and 681. ss. to the lay im-
propriator of tithes. The million sterling that has been
advanced to the Clergy, is to be altogether remitted.
In all parishes, not containing more than fifty Pro-
testants, on their becoming void, the appointment of an
incumbent is to be suspended at the discretion of the Lord
Lieutenant and Privy Council. In those parishes where
there is no member of the Established Church, the minister
of some adjoining parish is to be nominated by the Ordinary
to attend to casual calls (should such occur), for the exer-
cise of religious offices, for which he is to receive 51. per
annum ; which may be considered a gratuity, as in few eases
can such contingencies arise. In any parish containing not
more than 50 Protestants, the neighbouring minister is to
receive from 10/. to 501., according to the number of per-
sons requiring his spiritual exertions in such parish. In all
parishes where the cure of souls is committed to the neigh-
bouring minister, and having no place of convenient wor-
ship, 100/. is to be allowed for building, or 151. a year for
renting a place for the performance of Divine service.
Every separate curate appointed to a parish is to receive
751 a•year, and permission to occupy the glebe house and
lands, if such exist, to the annual value of 251., and a dis-
cretionary power will be given to the Lord Lieutenant,
reduce the income in all parishes and unions (on such be-
coming vacant) wherein the net annual value exceeds 300/.
Independently of the proceeds accruing from these reduc-
tions, the surplus otherwise eliminated by the proposed al-
location of the church funds will amount to upwards of
58,0001. per annum, to be devoted to purposes of general
elucation without reference to religious distinction. In this
is to be recognized the dawn of a new and happy era for
for Ireland. From the statements made in the Report of
the Commission of Inquiry, it appears that out of 26 dio-
ceses in Ireland there arc-
-151 parishes having no member of the Established Church.
194 ditto having less than 10.
198 ditto less than 20.
133 ditto less than 30.
107 ditto less than 40.
77 ditto less than 77.

860 -
Eight hundred and sixty parishes are thus under the
operation of this Bill, and the surplus funds, at present
applied to the support of a sinecure, and therefore super-
fluous portion of the establishment, will be in future devoted
to the mental and moral instruction of the people ; who,
though taxed for religious purposes, have been hitherto
left by the Government in a state of ignorance bordering
on barbarism—plundered, and occasionally sacrificed in a
spirit of Parson-persecution—and denounced as rebellious
and disaffected for not tamely, submitting to a system
which, regardless of religion, justice, humanity, and de-
cency, prostituted all the better feelings of human nature to
the gratification of the pampered and profligate appetites
of its Ministers. The Bill, we believe, is not yet printed ;
we shall, of course, have ample opportunity for further
comment in the course of its progress. At present we
shall merely observe that, though not as fundamental in
principle as we could have wished, it is certainly more so
than we could have hoped, and probably as much so as
any Ministry, under the circumstances, should be able to
carry into operation. It is, however, a bad principle to re-
cognise an establishment from which the majority of the
population dissent, though we are willing to accord to the
Ministry the fullest credit for the present Bill. It must, if
they stand by it, in its details, bear them on the popular
support aloft through the impediments in which the ad-
vocates of corruption may endeavour to embarrass them.—

Morning Advertiser.
It is reported that a certain Italian, having met with one
that had highly provoked him, put a poinard to his breast,
and, unless he would blaspheme God, told him he would
kill him ; which the other doing, to save his life, the Italian
presently killed him, to the intent he might be, damned,
having no time for repentance. In much the same position
at this moment does Lord Melbourne stand with Mr.
O'Connell,—and when Lord Melbourne shall have, to
save his Government, done that which the other trembler
did to save his life (for there is but slight difference
in our sight betwixt blaspheming the name of God and
destroying his Church) Mr. O'Connell will do that by
Lord Melbourne which the Italian did by his enemy.
That Lord Melbourne has " highly provoked" Mr.
O'Connell no man cognizant of their respective posi-
tions, or of Lord Melbourne's share in the framing of that
Speech which denounced him from the Throne,—will
doubt ;—that Mr. O'Connell will forgive him, no man cog-
nizant of Mr. O'Connell's character will easily believe,—
and that Lord Melbourne will not " presently" be dis-
patched by Mr. O'Connell, so soon as he shall have served
his turn, and destroyed the Irish Church,—no man who
knows the strength of Mr. O'Connell and his party, and
the weakness.of Lord Melbourne and the Whigs, can for
a moment doubt. There is nothing more certain than that
the alliance at present subsisting between the Whigs and
this man must cease the moment the former refuse
to go the whole length required by the latter. There
is nothing we say more certain than this ; except,
indeed, it be, that the Irish Church Bill once passed,
Lord Melbourne and his friends will " have no time for re-
pentance,"—and that the vengeance of Mr. O'Connell will
be complete ! It is agreed on all sides, that the total sepa-
ration of the tw• countries must inevitably and inconti-
nently follow the subversion of the Established Church in
either of them. He must be indued with but little fore-
sight by nature, or must have acquired but little wisdom
from experience, who can look at the results of Catho-
lic Emancipation, as developed up to this time, and
not perceive that the total destruction of Protestant-
ism, and the ultimate establishment of Popery, in
Ireland (such is the premium held out for the anni-
hilation of the Protestants by this Bill), is as cer-
tain a result from Lord Morpeth's proposed -measure,
as the establishment of Mr. O'Connell as " Dictator" in
• that country, has been the result of Catholic Emancipation.
We cannot, until the Bill is before us, demonstrate, clause
by clause, its destructive tendency. It is perceptible, as
far as the outline given to us in Lord Morpeth's speech
goes, in every sentence of that outline—from the one which
informs us that two shillings a week remuneration is to be
allowed to a Curate for any extra duty that may devolve on
him,—to the one which specifies the minimum to which it
will be necessary to reduce the Protestants in each Parish,
in order to do away with a Church and a Clergyman,—and
in order to leave to the Chapel and to the Priest undisputed
sovereignty. It is true that Lord Morpeth formally professed
himself during his speech " a friend to religion ;" but are
we to take these professions as sufficient amends made for
the peculiar zeal he leas shown in advancing such principles
and opinions as tend directly to destroy the Protestant Church,
and to disgrace and lower the profession of a Minister of the
Gospel ;—such principles as have in all ages been embraced
by its most violent enemies ? The principle of appropria

ing the revenues of the Church to other than ecclesiastical
purposes—the doing away with Protestant worship in all
parishes where there vuy not be for the time a certain
number of attendants at Church—the destruction of all those
commutations oftithes which hate existed for years, and which
cannot be destroyed without breaches of contract innumer-