The Sun.
London, England, 1835-04-04 00:00:00

purpose for which it was given has not failed.
Fay, even of individuals, may be taken and nppro
priated to other purposes by the State on a just recom-
pense being made to the owner from whom it is -taken ;
though this ought never to be done either to such an
extent or on such slight grounds as may render the
tenure insecure in public estimation. Property, at
least in this country, implies not only the right of en-
joyment, but also of disposing of it to others with the
same privileges, either absolutely -or within limits,
prescribed for the public welfare. Transgressions
of those limits do not give the property to the
State, but it is considered to that extent undis-
posed of ; and, except where some condition of the
tenure has been violated, it is only when a rightful owner
• cannot be found that it falls to the State, viz., to the
King. The Church property, or certainly the great
bulk of it, was given by private individuals for the
support of the Saxon Church, before the great corrup-
tions of the Church of Rome. It was given to the
predecessors of the several Corporations that now hold
it. Neither the subsequent corruptions nor the Re-
formation introduced a new Church or a new religion.
Corporations are creatures of law, and may for just
reasons be modified or destroyed. Alterations in the
duties of a Corporation, or mere modifications of a
Corporate body, whether an aggregate of individuals
or of Corporations, do not change the identity of float
body. To do so it must be destroyed, and another
created in its stead. The property so given to the
Church was certainly once private property ; and
when, we would ask, did it become the property of the
State ? Is property safe from appropriation to a dif-
ferent purpose when given to support a Dissenting
Chapel, but not if given to support the Church ?
It may be objected that a large portion, of Church
property was alienated in the reign of Henry the
Eighth, and has not been restored. But ought
not that confiscation to be regarded in the same
unfavourable light as many confiscations of pri-
vate property by the Legislature in early times,
which were never reversed ? Again, it may be ob-
jected, that for public purposes, such as the forming of
streets, roads, canals, &c., Church property has often
been taken. To this no other reply seems required
than that private property has also been often so
taken : and no greater inviolability is claimed for the
Church property than for private property. To some
other objections which may be made, on the ground of
Legislative interposition, it seems a sufficient answer
to mention, that even as to private property the Legis-
lature, with the consent of the persons for the time
being interested, though among them they have not
the whole fee simple, has often not only modified the
rights to such property, but even authorized a sale of
it, regard, however, being always had to the purposes
for which the property was settled. The fair result of
what is stated above is, that the Church property is in
the same predicament as the property of Corporations
in general ; or, if there be a difference in respect of in-
violability, it is in favour of the property of the Church,
because of the paramount importance of the purpose
for which it was given.—Morning Post.
Ourpaper of yesterday communicated to our readers
the fact of a glorious majority, not only upon one of
the most important, -but one of the most gratifying,
events of which it has been the medium since the eas-
ing of the Reform Bill—namely, that the Reformed
Parliament of the United Kingdom, although labour-
ing under all the disadvantage of being returned under
a Tory appeal to the constituency of the country,
was determined' to do justice to the people of
Ireland, and.. that henceforth the State would deal
with the ;property of the Church as public pro.
perty destined for the benefit of the people, and
no longer to be applied to Church uses, than it
might seem necessary to the people to allow it to
be so employed. This great and important principle,
so necessary to the welfare of every people, and so in-
expressibly necessary to a good understanding between
the people of this country, and the people of Ireland,
the House of Commons has consecrated by a majority
of 322 to 289 ; and most nobly does the majority de-
serve, -not of it only, but of all Europe. The evil
principle of Toryism has received a stunning, if not
also a mortal, blow--the principle of popular Govern-
ment, as opposed to an oppressive, and aristocratic
oligarchy, has triumphed in the most signal manner :
and although the Tories, with a pertinacity which
does them injury in the estimation of their best
friends, still cling to olLe, there can be no doubt
that their fate is sealed, and that, a few dais hence,
they will "return to the place from whence they
came " with a hearty farewell from every honest
and liberal mind throuihout the country. S:r R.
Peel fought hard to evade the fate which he knew had
been provided for him. His scouts and whippers-in
were out in all directions, and his troops mustered in
admirable order—but the House was determined on
doing justice to the people of Ireland, and all the
blustering, all the praying, all the entreaties, of the
Right Hon. Baronet, were unable to wring from the
real Representatives of the people the slightest con-
cession. They not only placed him again in a dis-
graceful, and we may add, in consequence of his con-
tinued retention of office, unconstitutional, minority ;
but gallantly followed up the victory which they
had gained, by putsuing the foe a stage farther,
and declaring that they would not relax in their efforts
until practical effect should have been given to their
decision. The conduct of Lord John Russell, in the
Leader of the Opposition, as well as that of his sup-
porters, is beyond all praise. He, as well as they,
have laboured for some weeks past under considerable
odium, in consequence of not having given
_battle to
the Tories upon the Navy and Ordnance Estimates
and other questions ; but we think the public will now
see that the Fabian policy has not been resorted to in
vain, and that those who adopted it, under every dis-
advantage, and subject to every prejudice, not only
deserve every respect for the high moral courage which
they have displayed, but for having finally placed their
opponents in a position, and that upon a great practi:-
cal question too, from which they cannot escape. We
congratulate the people of England upon the result,
and we respectfully wish the Tories a good night to all
their vain anticipations of power, and imaginary hopes
of retaining it, in spite of the people of England.—
Morning Advertiser.

Sir Robert Peel never was more mistaken in his life
than when he supposes that the people of England
share his opinions with regard to the abuses of the
Church of Ireland. " Let me whisper in your ear
(said the Right Hon. Baronet to the majority opposed to
him) that although you are triumphant here—though
you are enablal to fetter our measures in this House,
yet the power you" exercise does not extend without
these walls with the intensity with which it operates
within," and then he proceeded to throw out some-
thing like a threat, that if they continued to oppose
him he would again appeal to the country. Let him
make the attempt. The people of England are at-
tached to the Protestant religion ; but they do not be-
lieve that the maintenance of ecclesiastical sinecures in
Ireland is calculated to advance the interests of that
reli-
gion. The question is, was as forcibly observed by Lord
John Russell in his reply, " whether the ecclesiastical
sinecures of Ireland are to be preserved for ever—whe-
ther there shall be for ever a Minister with a large
stipend, and all the appendages of a large church
establishment in a parish populous indeed, but con-
taining no Protestants—that no part of the revenue
of the Church in that parish, shall be applied to the
general education of the people ?" Sir Robert wishes
to maintain a Church, " not for the sake of any benefit
that it confers, but for the surplus over its spiritual
wants." If superfluous wealth were calculated to
promote the interests of a Church, that of Ireland
would at this day be the most firmly established of any
in Europe. But its wealth has been its ruin. We do
not consider that Sir R. Peel by any means satisfacto-
rily answered the observations of Mr. Fowell Buxton
on this point. "To his mind (said Mr. F. Buxton)
there never was so unfortunate a mistake as that
of supposing that a Church gathered weight or in-
fluence by its wealth. If wealth, if prodigal endow-
ments, could have rendered effectual the conversion of
the Irish, we, at this day, should not have had a single
Catholic in Ireland." The truth is, as was admitted
by the Rev. Mr. Boyton at a meeting some months
ago, that the Church affords handsome incomes for the
younger sons of the Irish gentry ; and the battle is
for these lucrative situations, and not for the spiritual
welfare of the Irish people. Sir Robert Peel wishes to