The Sun.
London, England, 1832-03-21 00:00:00

PiRIT OF THE PUBLIC JOURNALS

The investigation at present carried on by. the
Committees of both Houses of Parliament on the
subjtct of the property of the Irish Church must be
very incomplete and unsatisfactory in its results, if
it shall be continued to be limited, as heretofore it
has been, to TitbeS, without regard to the lands in
the enjoyment of Bi,hops. Apart from all other
considerations, it has always appeared to us that the
tenure under which those lands are held, with its
legal incidents, depriving the occupier of all possibi-
lity of acquiring a permanent interest in the soil, and
subjecting him to the arbitrary discretion of the
Ecclesiastic under whom he holds, constitutes in
i self a most important hindrance to the progress of
iTsprovement in Ireland. Englishmen have little
idea of the great extent of the territory of Ireland
held under this very objectionable tenure, or that in
fart the gentry of several counties—Armagh for ex-
ample—have no better than a mere twenty-one
years' lease of their es•ate3; that is to say, any Bi-
shop who chooses to run his life against the lease
may reduce one or all of the gentlemen on the
church's lands to a state of absolute pauperism.
The eccentric Lord Rokeby took it into his head to
decline renewing the leases under him in Derry, by
which process the revenues of that See were raised
to their present enormous amount. There is nothing
to prevent any other madman, profligate, or specu-
lator, on the Irish Bench from making away in like
manner with the properties and interests derived
under the Church in his particular Bishopric. In a
constitutional point of view, the dominion which the
Church, by these means, exercises over the lay
proprietors of the country, is of the most dan-
gerous nature. Time was, when the Grand Jury
of the county of Armagh, having entered into
Resolutions condemnatory of the tithe system,the
Irish Primate (Stewart) caused it to be well
undestood that he should not renew, for any mo-
neyed consideration, the lease of any gentleman a
parry to tho-e resolutions who might presume to
stir further in the matter. The grand jury of the
county of Kilkenny have lately ventured upon a
similar declaration against tithes; tine shall see whe-
ther they will meet with a like menace. There is,
however, one See, of which the Bishop has thought
fit to exert his arbitrary discretion as to the renewal
of leases, to a degree which demands public notice
and inquiry. What may be the motive of the Right
Reverend ll:gnitary we do not know; but we do
know that a Legislature which suffers him or any
other Prelate to sport in such a manner with the
property and happiness of a large population fails to

. .
perform one of its prime duties. The See to which
we allude is-_that of Kilmore, and the present Dio.
swan is„tane of a family (the Beresfords), the Enem-
here of which have long constituted a sort of close
.--Ecclesiastical Corporation in Ireland. We are in-
formed that renewals have been refused of the leases
extending over no less than three-fourths of the
church lands in that diocese. There are now two
Irish Bishops) of that family, there were formerly
three, to say nothing of the Deans, Sub-deans,
Archdeacons, and Prebendaries, bearing that truly
Protestant name.—Afornhig Chronicle.
_The Irish tithe question still appears to hang very
heavily on Mr. Stanley's hands. The Committee,
after a very stormy debate on Tuesday week last,
having reported piogress, and obtained leave to sit
again, we expected that the debate would, ere this
have been resumed. Whenever that may take place
it will probably last another night ; for the small, but
firm phalanx of Irish Members that opposed the
going into Committee, appear determined to fight
the ground inch by inch. It is certainly their duty
to do so, and to insist on having all the evidence
bearing on the question brought before them, pre-
viously to thttr undertaking the serious considera-
tion of a matter, vitally indeed important to the coun-
try. Nothing can be more reasonable than that the
House should not on such a subject legislate in a
state of obscurity which, even the lights afforded
by those eminent Statesmen, Mr. Stanley and Sir
Robert Peel, have not had any tendency to remove.
We regret to observe that these last-mentioned gen-
tlemen," par nobile fratrum," have indeed added
nothing to tle stock of information as yet collected
on the subject, though it is long since the latter has
fatied his " prentice han" on Ireland, and the former
;0 still engaged in learning his trade in that country.
That ho has much yet to learn, no one can doubt,
who has read his speeches and resolutions in the
House of Commons cri Tuesday week last. He is,
indeed, eloquent in describing the distrea,es of the
clergy ; while against the poor, hungry, houseless,
friendless peasantry, he prepares himself with a Bill
to coerce them into tithe payments. With him the
magnified wants of the sinecurist are the first object
of regard, a hi!e the wretched condition of the Irish
population is kepi entirely out of the picture. But
let us remind Mr. Stanley " that it has been the
policy of every wise Government, of which history
furnishes us with an example, to cherish and
support, and thereby improve, the condition of the
mass of the people, in order that they might have
an interest in the defence and preservation of the
State." But a principle directly the contrary has,
we regret to say, always prevailed in Ireland. On
the present occasion, Mr. Stanley has certainly be-
gun at the wrong end; and if he does not speedily
consider what he is about, and consult with more
experienced men, he will plunge the country in
Wood, or be obliged disgracefully to retrace his
;taps. The Irish Members must feel their strength,
and the mass of power which they represent in
the Imperial Parliament. They will not, they can-
not, fwe de an inch. The last resolution brought
forward by Mr. Stanley should have been the first
aottl only proposition made to the House; and in-
stead of commutiag tithes for land, it should have
been proposed to abolish them, and in lieu of them
to lay on a provision for the poor. We tell him,
and let him carefully read over all the evidence
that has been collected in the Committee, and he
will agree with us, not only that tithes must be
given up, but also every attempt to enforce pay-
ment of a single shilling of them !—and that a le-
gislative provision for the' poor must be sub-tituted
in place of that odious impost, In such a measure as
proposed, it has now become the interest of both
Alavirrlimen and landlords cordially to concur. The
attorch, if it wishes to preserve the million of acres
whiph tvotild still remain for it—and the landlords, if
they be desirous to secure their rents, and preserve
the peace and tranquillity of the country. To the
Church we would say—your life interests shall be
preserved—but the establishment must he new mo-
delled—and in place of sinecurists and pluralists, we
must have a resident working Clergy. "No Cu-
rates at 501. a-year, nor absentees at 2,001 —no
starving zeal—no lazy affluence." We would tell
the Irish landlords, whose rents are not the propor-
tion, but nearly the whole of the produce, that they
are not " mere land merchants"—that they have
other duties to perform, as well as rents to receive ;
and that if they wish to preserve their rents, they mutt
00 longer oppress and neglect their tenantry. " Ern-
ploy the people, don't hang them," was the advice
given to Irish gentlemen a century back. The unenvi-
able state of landlords in Ireland is still that of a mere
isolated being, occasionally to be found dwelling with
selfish apathy on the oasis of the moral waste that
surrounds him—" without friends or influence"—
" the peasantry, without interest, almost without
livelihood in the country—nothing to defend—no-
thing to love—despairing arid desperate—ripe and
ready for change"—and yet this is the peasantry
among whom Mr. Stanley talks of " vindicating the
authority of the Law !" is the law to them 9
What is it in Ireland ? " Not a reruge to the poor,
but a luxury to the rich"—where we find" the great
man and the strong man executing, and the poor
and weak suffering the Law." Mr. Stanley's last
Resolution, vague and empty as it is—should then,
as we propose to amend it—have been the only pro-
position that can now be brought forward for the grave
consideration of men honestly wishing toserve Ireland,
and secure her connexion with Great Britain. His Re-
solution to coerce must be altogether abandoned,
whatever other he might adopt. Indeed we donbt
much whether any advance of money to the clergy

itll t

or any means to replace it, would at all be necessarv,

for we are persuaded, and the opinions of many influ-
ential men, both in and out of Parliament, confirm
us in the opinion, that if the question was entertained
crid put forward by his Majesty's Ministers on the
road, equitable, and enlightened principle that we
save advocated, there would be an end to all further
opposition on the part of the people,and there would
exist no further necessity for commencing a servile
war against the population of Ireland. We hope,
however, that Mr. Stanley will reconsider and re-
trace his steps before we again take up the subject,
and in the meantime that the Irish Members will
stand firm, and reflect that at such a critical junc-
ture as the present, " Ireland expects that every
man of them will do his duty."--lforning Chron.

It cannot he doubted that the object of referring
Mr. Sadler's Bill, to regulate infant labour, to a
" Select Committee," is to destroy its efficiency,
and make it the sort of thing which will not alarm
the cupidity of the task-masters nor afford any pro-
tection to their slaves. Select Committees are only
useful to investigate disputed facts, to determine by
evidence the value of conflicting statements, and to
furnish the House with the result. If a Bill involve
only a question of principle, why should it be re-
ferred to a Select Committee, instead of being
sent before a Committee of the whole House ?
Surely, although the House may often require to
have the assistance of a Select Committee in ascer-
taining facts-, it is always supposed to know the
principles on which it ought to legislate. For if
the House must be supplied with principles as well
as facts, before it can undertake to pass a Bill, it is
unfit for the task of legislation. In the case of Mr
Sadler's Bill, as an Evening Paper (the Standard)
has justly observed, the facts are not denied. It is
not disputed that children of a very tender age are
worked 14, 16, or 18 hours in the 24. Is
it not enough for the House of Commons to know
this to induce it to interpose its authority to pre-
vent this grevious oppression of the helpless beings
who are the victims of our factory system ? Can-
not every man of common sense understand, without
requiring any special evidence in the matter, that a
system which leaves the young so few hours for rest
and sleep—none for instruction—none for the health-
ful recreations of childhood—must be injurious to
health and morals, and therefore ought not to be
permitted by any Legislature that did not regard
the rights of humanity and the interests of civilisa-
tion as of no importance compared with what poli-
tical economists call the " production of national
wealth," but which, in fact, if it he a production of
wealth at all, is so at a price which makes gold itself
too dear, by creating, in far greater proportion, pub-
lic misery, disease, crime, and debasement. We
are not surprised at the Chancellor of the Exchequer
lending himself to the proposition for a " Select
Committee." The political economists having called
for it, what else could the colleague of the luminary
of the !Macculloch school do than consent ? Mr.
Poulett Thomson, though an advocate for what is
miscalled " free-trade," is not quite so well con-
vinced that the children of British parents should
he emancipated from the chains of a system of
bondage in the heart of England, not sur-
passed, in its power to demoralise and intl ct
misery and suffering, by even West Indian slavery.
Who can wonder that Lord Althorp sympathises
rather with the task-masters than with the infant
slave, when it is recollected what an illumination
his mind has recently received upon the subject of
the brutal and barbarous system of flogging in the
army ? We observe that when Mr. Hunt said, in
the debate on Mr. Sadler's Bill, it would be a libel
on savages, or even on the beasts of the forest, to
say that they would allow their offspring to be
treated with the cruelty and oppression, which re-
duced the children of the poor, in the manufactur-
ing districts, to the lowest state of wretchedness and
degradation, there was laughter in the House. Gra-
cious Heaven I what a theme for the Legislators of
a civilised country to make a subject of merriment
And this is a House of Commons elected chiefly
under a Reform excitement, for the purpose of pass-
ing the Reform Bill I We are not told through what
extent of benches the laugh extended—but, whe-
ther it came from the Ministerial or Opposition
side, it is equally creditable to the good feeling and
good taste that enlivened such a tale of misery with
laughter !—iLforning Herald.
A morning paper has been made the dupe of a
malignant party-spirit, in its statement respecting
the St. Patrick's dinner. It is quite monstrous,
surely, to defend the general absence of the Irish
Members of the House of Commons, on the ground,
Ist, of the Duke of Northumberland, who had been
Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, and a frequent and mu-
nificent benefactor of the charity, taking the chair on

this occasion ; and 2d, on that of Lord London-
derry, who came like any other purchaser of a
ticket, having made a foolish speech. Who could
foretell that such a speech—which, by the way,
stopped short of political allusions—would be uttered?
It is, indeed, an Irish excuse for Irish absentees,

that they faded to succour the infant children of their
por countrymen, because of Lord Londonderry's
gesta'ion of a discourse about which no human being
could know any thing until it was in the act of being
delivered ! and then, who could prevent it ? Again,
the Committee are accused of having chosen the
Duke of Northumbei land for president, because he
was a Tory. Good God ! is the cup of charity to
be thus poisoned by infusions of pan y venom ?
Let Whig Noblemen come forward with offers to
lecept the Presidency, and then blame the mana-
._

gets if such condescending offers be refused. The
rule of the Society, first proposed by the lamented
Duke of Kent, was, that the Presidents should be
chosen alternately from the ranks of Whig and Tory.
At times, unfortunately, it is found impossible to
act upon this policy, inasmuch as the chair of such a
meeting is a troublesome task in the eyes of many
Noblemen, and the Committee, anxious only to be-
nefit the funds from which the schools for the un-
fortunate children are supported, have been gene-
rally too happy to invite the presence as a chairman
of any respectable Nobleman whose kindness may
lead him to undertake the momentary office. The
standing law of this beneficent institution,
and that from which almost the whole of its
prosperity may be traced, is a religious and unvary-
ing abstinence from politics of every description at
the meetings on the anniversary of the pa-
tron saint. At this last dinner, the absence of every
individual connected with a Whig Administration,
and for no other reason apparently but the name of
the Duke of Northumberland as chairman, is the
first circumstance which has ever given a political
colour to the St. Patrick's meetings. When Whig
Noblemen have presided, there was no sulk or mo-
roseness displayed by the Tories, who have in such
instances attended, and given liberal subscriptions.
It is the worst and most inhuman spirit of faction,
which indulges itself to the injury of the helpless
poor. We must set our correspondent "T. B."
right : the "abuse" was not in the choice of a pre-
sident, for we presume that no charity committee in
England would not have been proud of the Duke
of Northumberland's protection ; the " abuse" was
in the conversion of his Grace's presidency into a
pretext for staying away, on the part of those whose
duty it was to be present.—Times.
A well-conceived and very ably- xritten pamphlet
has just been published by Mr. Lambert, M.P. for
the county of Wexford, to which it will assuredly

not be useless to point the attention of our readers.
It is a letter on the Currency, addressed to Lord
Althorp, and forms another arrow in the quiver of

hose who, like ourselves, have uniformly con-

dermied the fatal measures of 1819 and 1826 ;
the former of which changed almost the whole
paper currency of the country from paper to
metal, and the latter of which deprived the
active portion of the community of even the
few remaining advantages which were left by it
to enable them to struggle against an enormous
and increased debt—failing means, and decay-
ing commerce. In all the views of Mr. Lambert we
very cordially join, as those which we have not only
long entertained, but endeavoured as strenuously to
support, with one exception;—and that that
Mr. Lambert conceives gold to pt secs qualities of

a different nature from common marketable commo-
dities, and deprecates its exportation as injurious
$o the .country. Now- that gold, by legislative

tmay
nactments, be made to possess qualities
hich are not only not inherent in it, but
hich do not, and ought not to belong to it,
tve are far from wishing to deny ; but gold is
nevertheless a marketable commodity, and may,
we are prepared to maintain, be exported or
imported from or into this or any other country,
without any injury to either. If an artificial value
be given to it, the country, of course, which com-
mits such blunder, and thereby enhances the value
of the metal, must pay for it ; but there is nothing,
beyond such an arrangement, to take the metal out
of the list of common commodities. Gold is nei-
ther found or transported without labour—that la-
bour must be paid for in something—and also if
exported from, after being imported into this country,
we take it for granted that neither Mr. Rothschild
nor Mr. Baring, nor any other money-changers, give
it away gratis—that they receive something in
exchange more satisfactory to them, and, in con-
sequence, more valuable to the country. Leav-
ing this disputed question, however, at issue be-
tween us, cs e cordially concur, as we have already
observed, in the propriety of all the other points on
which Mr. Lambert has insisted with so much
truth, earnestness, and justice. We agree with
him that a silver currency is far preferable to a gold
one, because it is less variable in point of value—
that the measure of 1819 was one of great iniquity
—that the destruction of the small notes was most
hasty, ill-advised, and ill-timed—that the public
burthens have been greatly increased by the change
in the currency—and that nothing but a change from
gold to silver, and of silver represented by a duly
authenticated and safe paper currency, can possibly
remedy either the ills under which the State labours
at present, or the still more tremendous ills which
evidently await it, should these measures not be
adopted.—Advertiser.

FROM THE GAZETTE OF LAST NIGHT,

DOWNING-STREET. MARCH Ili.
The King has been pleased to appoint the Earl of iNiulgrave to
be Captain-General and Governor in Chief of the island of Ja-
maica and it. dependencies.

DECLARATION OF INSOLVENCY.
CHARLES LEACH, New Manor-street, Chelsea, corn
chandler.

BANKRUPTS.
STEPHEN KEYTE, Minories, oilman, to surrender March
27, at ten, and May 1, at one, at the Court of Bankruptcy.
Soames, Great Winchester street.

W I LLI A M EV ASS, Carmarthen, draper, March 30, at ten,
and May 1, at eleven, at the Court of Bankruptcy. Burt, Mitre-
court, Milk-street.

JOSEPH BISHOP, Wittlebury-street, Euston-square, car
penter, April 31, at half-past eleven, and May I, at ten, at the
Court of Bankruptcy. Jones, Brunswick-square.
JAMES ABBOTT, St. George's road, Surrey, bookseller,
March '27, at three, and May 1, at one, at the Court of Bank-
ruptcy}. Wright, Staple Inn.
JAMES JOHNSON, Norwich, glass-merchant, April 2, at
seven, 3, at ten, and May 1, at one, at the White Lion Inn, Nor-
wich. Colman and Cozens, Norwich.
EDWARD TUCKEY, Birmingham, victualler, April 3, and
May 1, at eleven, at Radenhurst's Royal Hotel, Birmingham.
Clinton and Son, Chancery lane, London ; Benson, Birmingham.
GEORGE BRADLEY, Stockport, Cheshire, innkeeper, April
12, and May 1, at nine, at the Albion Notel, Manchester. Milne,
Parry, Milne, and Morris, Temple, London ; Woods, Bullock
Smithy, near Stockport.
THOMAS CURNIN, Birmingham, victualler, April 3, and
Mac 1, at one, at Dee's Royal ilutel, Birmingham. Chilton and
Son, Chancery-lane, London; Benson, Birmingham.
THOMAS DR ACKLEY, jun., Thornton, Leicestershire,
farmer, March 30, and May 1, at eleven, at the George Inn,
Hinckley, Leicertershire. Cowden, Hinckley; Palmer and
Maltby Temple, London.
SASIIEL W'INDHAM JONES, Usk, Monmouthshire,
draper, April 3, and May 1, at twelve, at the Commercial Rooms,
Bristol. White and Whitmore, Lincoln's Inn, London; Bevan
and Brittan,Bristol..._

FRANCIS FISHER, jun., and WILLIAM! JEPSON
FISHER, Bristol, sail-makers, April 4, and May 1, at two, at the
Commercial Rooms, Bristol. Swain, Stevens, and Co , Frecle-
riek's-pLice, Old Jewry, London ; Smith, Bristol.
SA NI IiEL W I LSO N, Chich Saint Osyth, Essex, grocer, March
30, and May I, at eleven, at the George Inn, Colchester. Spar-
ling, Colchester; Stevens, Wilkinson, and Satchell, London.
ONESIPHORQS PL KNELL, Gloucester, currier, March 27,
and May I, at eleven, at the offices of Winterbotham, Weedon,
Addison, and Thomas, Gloucester. Winterbotham and Co.,
Gloucester; Bousfield, Chatham-place, London.
HENRY HARRISON, Liverpool, commission-agent, April
7, and May 1, at one, at the Clarendon-rooms, Liverpool. Black-
stock and Bucce, King's Bench-walk, Temple; Bardswell,
Liverpool.
DIVIDENDS.

S. Skelton, King-street, Holborn, jeweller, April 12, at one,
at the Court of Bankruptcy—J. Lloyd, King's-place, Commer-
cial-road, slopseller, April 16, at one, at the Court of Bank-
ruptcy—C. Thomson, jun. Beaumont-street, Marylebonne, wine
merchant, April 10, at ten, at the Court of Bankruptcy—J. A.
Butler, Blackheath, master mariner, April 10, at ten, at the
Court of Bankruptcy—M. W. Deane , Richmond, Surrey, tea.
dealer, April 13, at eleven, at the Court of Bankruptcy—J. Fra-
ser, Limehouse, patent ship hearth manufacturer, April 12, at
a quarter-past eleven, at the Court of Bankruptcy—G. Willis,
Ha, market, oilman, April 12, at eleven, at the Court of Bank-
ruptcy—J. Rope, Ray-street, Clerkenwell, butcher, April 12, at
eleven, at the Court of Bankruptcy—A. Brown, Liverpool, silk-
mercer, April 12, at eleven, at the Court of Bankruptcy—J. J.
Pring, Bradford, Wiltshire, grocer, April 17, at one, at the Cas.
tle and Bail Inn, Bath—G. L. Massey, Pertsea. linen-draper,
April 16, at three, at Totterdell's Commercial Hotel, l'ortsea—
J. Bridge, Liverpool, merchant, April 10, at two, at the New
Court House, Liverpool—W. W. Smith and W. Goode, Bir-
mingham, bankers, April 17, at one. at Doe's Royal Hotel, Bir-
mingham—E. U. and W. Plowright, Wells.next-the.,Sea, Nor.'
folk, wine-merchants, April 11, at seven, at the Fleece Inn,
Wells—T. Jackson, Laverick Hall, Cumberland, miller, April
12, at two, at the Black Lion Inn, Whitehaven —T. Wharton,
Wyton, Yorkshire, merchant, April 11, at eleven, at the George
Inn, Kingston-upon-Hull—G. Crofts, Wells-next-the-Sea, Nor-
folk, merchant, April 11, at seven, at the Fleece Inn, Wells_
Darke, St. Colomb, Cornwall, linen-draper, April 11, at ten,
at the Commercial Inn, St. Colomb—lt. Lowthcr, Sheffield, mer-
chant, April 11, at twelve, at the Tontine Inn. Sheffield—J. Lo_
max, lloghton Bottoms Lancashire. calico-printer, April 16, at
twelve, at the Hotel, Blackburn.

CERTIFICATES, APRIL 10.
J. Lilleyman, Goldsmith-street, City, silkman—J. Brettell,
Bristol, cheese-factor—L. Nutley, Great Newport-street, Long-
acre, boot-maker—J. Ridgway, Manchester, laceman—W. Law-
ton, Birkenhead,;Cheshire, lime-burner—W. Athearn, Knight's-
hill, Streatham, brick.maker—G. Cockin, Sheepridge, York.
shire, fancy-manufacturer—fl. Flint, Ormond Quay, Dublin,
stationer--R. and C. Burr, Bentinck-street, Manchester-square,
upholsterers

PARTNERSHIPS DISSOLVED.
J. Sanderson and T. poorhouse, Sheffield, Yorkshire, quarry-
men—J. and It. Smith, High Holborn, tailors—A. M'Crie and
J. Chapman, Bath, tailors—J. Moor and Co., Morpeth, Northurn.
berland, brewers as far as regards J. Robinson—J. Sommerville
and J. Oswald, Queen-street, City, warehousemen—L. Price and
E. Lacy, Finsbury-place, milliners—J. Smith and H. Itoult,
Sheffield, silversmiths—NV. Sanderson and R. Thurburn, Nles-
sina, merchants—T. and S. Maton, New Sarum, grocers—G. NV.
Scudder and J. Marman, Welelose-square, sugar.retiners—T. J.
Lowndes and E. Harrison, Liverpool, provision-merchants—C.
Cowley and E. Nash, Upton-upon-Severn, Worcestershire,
mercers—J. Palmer and T. Dean. Sandacre, Derbyshire, bobbin.
thread-manufacturers--J. Marsh and C. Hargreaves, Liverpool,
tailors—G. Commons and W. Rodd, Penzance, shoe-makers—
D. Hollands and W. A. Hepburn, the Wall, Bermondsey,
barge-builders—G. Shadforth and R. Tood, Newcastle-upon-
Tyne, timber.merchants—J. I). Young and C. Rolf, Hertford,
tailors—R. NV. Ward and J. Bell, a amb-street, Spitaltields,
wine-merchants--J. Protheroc and J. Morcom, Bristol, hatters
—S. and J. Reed, Newcastle-upon-Trent, attorneys—W. F. Hoy.
land and J. Harrison, Halifax, Yorkshire, tea-dealers—R. Wil-
liamson and I. Halstead, Bradford, Yorkshire, brass-founders—
J. Cumming and J. Crompton, Manchester, tailors—J. Wintle,
sen. and J. Wintle, jun. Gloucester, wine-merchants.