The Sun.
London, England, 1835-03-21 00:00:00

SPIRIT OF THE PUBLIC JOURNALS.

The Government plan for the abolition of Irish tithes, as
stated by Sir Henry Hardinge last night, did not afford the
same satisfaction to the House of Commons which the Dis•
sent-ors' Marriage Bill bad afforded but a few nights before.
The small majority by which Mr. Spring Rice's amendment
was negatived, a majority of only 15, in a House consisting
,of 411 Members, certainly does not seem to promise much for
the success of the measure. Sir Henry Hardinge's plan was
founded in a great degree upon the Bill of last year. He pro-
uosed to get rid of tithes by converting them into a rent charge
tpon the land, payable by the leading landlords of the parish
in proportion of 75/. for every 100/. tithe. An arrangement
to prevent' the Clergyman from coming into contact with his
parishioners was this :—ln default of payment the Clergyman
is to apply to the Church Commissioners, and they are to pro-
ceed aga►nst the landlord. The rent charge being thus se-
cured, to be redeemable, and the produce to be invested in
lands for the benefit of the present tithe owners. With this
plan was connected a provision for an advance on account of
the arrears of 1834. The following is the comparison drawn
by the Right Hon. Member himself between his own Bill and
that of Mr. Littleton :

" The Bill of last year proposed to give the tithe-owner 771. 10s.
for every 100/. ; but by the measure which he would introduce, he
would receive only 75/., being :IL 10s. less. It was, however, in-
tended to indemnify the Clergy to the extent of 751.—that was to
say, that if, during the process of the investment of the redemp-
tion money, any loss of interest should be sustained, the present in-
cumbents would, during their lives, be guaranteed 751." _

As we stated at the outset, this was far from being satisfac-
tory to the House. The chief objections taken against it,
were, first, on the score of inconsistency, the Ministers having
strongly opposed, on a former occasion, what they now adopted
themselves. And, again, upon the score of insufficiency, in.
asmuch as the present measure contained no appropriation,
which Mr. O'Connell and others contended was the most im-
portant prevision of the former, and the most important
in any measure pretending to legislate for the peace of
Ireland. A third objection, upon which considerable stress
was also laid, consisted in the decreased indemnity to
the landlords for the burden imposed on them, by mak-
ing their responsible for the rent charge. From all
that occurred last night it is evident that a great struggle
is preparing. Those who supported the late Administration
on the question which caused the secession of Lord Stanley,
Sir J. Graham, &c., denounce the present attempt as a nar-
rowing of the principle. They will struggle hard to defeat
it ; but it is impossible, in the present attitude of parties, to
say whether the attempt will succeed or otherwise. At all
events, the Irish Church, and every question bearing upon it,
have involved Ministers in difficulties from which it is uncer-
tain whether they will succeed in extricating themselves, or
finally be obliged to surrender at discretion.—Morning
Herald.

In the House of Commons, last night, Sir Henry Hardinge
propounded the Government plan of treating the Irish Tithe
Question. A more slavishly servile imitation of the measure
brought forward last session by the Whigs, and factiously op-
posed by the very men who now adopt it, it is impossible to
conceive. As the substance of the measure will be found twice
given elsewhere, once in detail in the Parliamentry report,
and again substantially in the Parliamentary summary, it will
be unnecessary to repeat it in a third form. It will be sutFcient
to remark that the leading features of both Whig and Tory
measures—the commutation of the tithe for a land-tax, and the
per centage bonus to the landlords—are in spirit and letter
the same. Is this brazen and callous perseverance of the Tories
in the, till now, new gamer of plundering opponents of
their property, and investing their naked deformity in their
stolen garments, the conduct of honest or honourable men ?
The Tories and their leader might well exhibit a cpnscience-
struck soreness on being reminded of the scandalous tergiver-
sation and profligate duplicity of their political conduct. All
men who have really the welfare of their country at heart,
must look with mingled astonishment, indignation, and regret,
at conduct, the ultimate tendency of which is to bring the
fundamental institutions of any Government where such auda-
cities can be unblushingly perpetrated into contempt. The ex-
traordinary irritability which we have referred to exhibijed dur-
ing the discussion, and its extraordinary result, demonstrated
that the House of Commons, in no slight degree, sympathised
with the distaste which will be felt throughout the whole country
at so disgraceful an exhibition. One amendment made by
Mr. Hume was withdrawn ; but another, brought forward by
Mr. Spring Rice, to the mere abstract effect that " it is expe-
dient to alter the existing laws relating to tithes in Ireland,"
was only lost by an insignificant Ministerial majority of 15, in
a House of 411 Members, the numbers being—for the origi-
nal motion, 213 ; against it, 198. The extraordinary small-
ness or the majority is attended with circumstances of greater
_Ministerial humiliation, inasmuch as the House was taken un-
awares by Mr. Rice's amendment, and inasmuch as Lord John
Russell, as leader of the Opposition, declared that he should
not oppose the Ministerial motion • not considering himself
thereby pledged to support the details of the Bill when brought
forward. We may, therefore, congratulate the Tories on this
new addition to their boasted list of triumphs. A few more
such triumphs, and they may admit, with Pyrrhus, that their
victories are calculated to undo them.—Morning Advertiser.
The Opposition journals groan under the painful necessity
of acknowledging that the Dissenters' Marriage Bill of Sir
Robert Peel is beyond all comparison a better measure than
that which Lord John Russell, the special friend of the
Dissenters, introduced last year, and which men of all classes
and descriptions in Parliament and in the country agreed, Vi ith
unprecedented unanimity, to denounce and deride. They
affect, however, to ha% e made a discovery, of the advantage
of which, if we imagined it could in any degree assuage their
anguish, we should think. it cruel to deprive them. It is found
out that Sir Robert Peel's Bill, being an exceedingly good
one, the whole merit of it really belongs to Lord John Russell;
and that the Bill of the Noble Lord having been a desperately
had one, the blame of this is justly to be ascribed to the Right
Honourable Baronet. And the rationale of the discovery is
simply this : —The legislator in each instance had the same
object principally in view, the object, to wit, of pleasing his po-
litical opponents; for which purpose it was necessary that
Lord John Russell should produce a miserable abortion, and
Sir Robert Peel a measure of statesmanlike wisdom and
efficiency.
The difference between Sir Robert Peel and Lord John. Rus-
sell, as legislators upon this subject, is not merely, as the
friends of Lord John judiciously intimate, that he purposely
sacrificed his professed object, with the view of propitiating
his opponents, and that Sir Robert Peel has extorted the ap-
probation of his opponents by pursuing his professed ob-
jects with skill, vigour, and success. Wide as this distinc-
tion would be, and triumphant as would be the com-
parison which it affords, the real distinction is much wider,
and the just comparison infinitely more triumphant to
the present Minister of the Crown. Whatever was the object
of Lord John Russell—whether to satisfy his friends or his an-
tagonists—in either case we know that he miserably failed, for
he made no approach whatever towards satisfying either. Sir
Robert Peel had a single object—that of presenting to the
Legislature the measure which, taking all circumstances into
view, would most conduce to the public welfare. And he has
not failed to satisfy the reasonable claimants of relief. * * *
He has not failed to reduce his enemies to a condition of mind
bordering upon insanity. Such is the contrast, when fairly
stated, between the legislation of Sir Robert Peel and that of
Lord John Russell.—Morning Post.

The House having resolved itself into a Committee, Sir
Henry Hardinge proceeded, in his new character of a Reform
Minister, to develop the views of Government on this im-
portant question. We have little fault to find with them ;
but when we hear the Right Honourable Gentleman declaring
that "it was his sincere belief that the Clergy of Ireland
were most anxious to have a change of the present system,
however materially their interests might be impaired by it,"
and that " however strong their claims, however, moderate
they had been in the exercise of their claims, there could be
no doubt that the collection of tithes had been the fruitful
source of violence and crime ; and therefore it was the
duty of the Legislature. to relieve the country from as-
saults on the property of the Clergy, which rendered the
tenure of all property insecure ; and it would be their
duty to place the Church in such a situation that they
would no longer have the collection of tithes ;"—we
ask if the circumstances were not precisely the same
when the Duke of Wellington, the real head of the
Ministry, declared in his place, on the second reading of the
Bill of last year, that " it went to prostrate the law, and
while professing to relieve the peasantry, and so giving them
an assurance that their insurrectionary resistance had been
crowned with success, absolutely gave them no substantial re-
lief, but was calculated only to benefit the landlords, who
would make the tenants pay the whole amount of tithe, in
increased rents, on the expiration of their leases." His Grace
then admitted that the clergy would incur great risk of not
getting their incomes without the Bill ; and he no doubt
hoped that, in their eagerness to recover their tithes, they
would succeed in producing disturbance and bloodshed.
How lamentable that a great nation should be dishonour-
ed by being subjected to the Ministry of men more de-
graded than ever statesmen before were in the history of any
country, by a profligate contempt for all principles ! Were not
the punishment of his Grace and his unblushing fellow apos-
tates to follow quickly their unprincipled exhibition, the con-
sequences to the morals of the country would be most
disastrous. History ought to be anticipated in this case.
Its doom should be visited during their lives on these unblush-
ing apostles of all that is profligate and vile in politics. Sir
Henry Hardinge's speech was such, that one of the Melbourne
Administration might have made it. A believer in the trans-
migration of souls might imagine that the soul of a Member of
the preceding Government had entered Sir Henry's body. He
dwelt on the " urgency of the case," the " magnitude of the
evil," the necessity " for rescuing the country from the state of
disorganisation to which it had arrived:" on the "exten-
sive system of intimidation practised against those who con-
tinued to pay tithes ;" on the " well-known fact, that the per-
son who obeyed the law was punished, while the turbulent and
those who violated the law were rewarded," and " that men's
minds were so much excited by the dangers by which they
were surrounded, that they were more in fear of the threats
and system of intimidation, than they were to oppose the law
itself." He stated that " when it had been found necessary
to call out troops to assist the tithe-gatherer, such disastrous
consequences had occasionally arisen, as every Christian and
friend to humanity must deplore," and that there was not " the
most remote hope of any improvement in Ireland unless some
effectual measure were taken for the final settlement of the
question." Morning Chronicle.
The Irish Tithe Bill was brought in last night, as had been
intended, by Sir Henry Hardinge. The principal provisions
of the Bill were what we had been led to anticipate. That
part of it relating to the remission of the million to the Clergy
was loudly condemned by Lord Howick, as a breach of faith
with the people of this country. But we apprehend that his
Lordship would find some difficulty in answering the argument