The Sun.
London, England, 1832-07-11 00:00:00

-1
•.‘„ ,

ne tell.

LONDON,
WEDNESDAY EVENING, JULY 11, 1832.

His MAJESTY arrived in town this afternoon
at half-past one o'clock, and shortly after held a
Levee. The Recorder made his report to the
KING in Council, of- all the prisoners in New-
gate under sentence of death, condemned at the
May Sessions.

Mr. STANLEY mentioned last night in the
House of Commons, in regard to the Irish
Tithes Bill, that whatever his original intention
may have been, he found that it was impossible
to press the entire measure this session. But
the first Bill, the Right Hon. Gentleman ob•
served, the House was pledged to,—that which
made the Tithe Composition Act permanent and
compulsory. After some desultory discussion,
the debate was adjourned to Friday next. In
the House of Lords, the whole of the clauses
and schedules in the Scotch Reform Bill were
agreed to, and the report ordered to be brought
up on Thursday. The Ecclesiastical Contempts
Bill was read a third time and passed.

We were informed this morning that, in con•
sequence of the cholera morbus raging so dread-
fully at York, it has been arranged that the
Northern Circuit shall commence at Durham,
and terminate at York.

The Dublin Weekly Freeman's Journal
of Saturday contains a letter from Dr. DOYLE
to Mr. STANLEY, on the subject of a passage
in the report of the Select Tithe Committee,
which the Bishop of KILDARE asserts is wholly
at variance with that portion of his evidence on
which the statement is founded, and which is to
the following effect :—" But the question (of
the division of the ecclesiastical revenue, says
the report) is of the less importance, as those
who contend most earnestly for its past exist-
ence admit that it had fallen into general disuse
in the course of thelsth and 16th century, and that
the appropriation of tithe in its present form has
been sanctioned by the prescription," &c.—
On this passage Dr. DOYLE observes—
" Hitherto the report mentioned the division
of the ecclesiastical revenues—it laboured to cast
due
siv, in the place of that doubtful divipoi
division n upon that antl
igh t
be,the revenues division—itthem
kept careful!)
out of view the incontrovertible truth, that, what-
selves were the patrimony of the poor, the sti-
pend of the clergy and the expenses of tht
church being first deducted ; but now this re-
port proceeds to assure us that the doubt affect-
ing the division is of no . importance, whereas
f tithe in its present form,
the appropriation o
that is, to the exclusive use and benefit of the
clergy, is sanctioned by the prescription of three
i as a
the matter of
attention doubt
o l . and
Parliament
uncer-
tainty
introduces,
centuries. This then is the fallacy, that the re-
port, whilst it exhibits the four-fold or three-
fold
what-
evervii detoutddhbe ittisiof undeserving
sion, the appropriation of tithe in its presen'
form. Thus the mind of the reader is led to
compare the appropriation of tithe it

its present form,'--not with the ancient
and undoubted appropriation of them—
but with the four. fold or three-fold division by
which that ancient appropriation was carried into
effect. The effect of this sophism upon the
mind would be, to transfer the doubt which is
cast upon the ancient mode of dividing the tithes
to the very appropriation itself of them, and to
lead men to believe that the present application
of them to the exclusive use of the parsons, is
the only matter of certainty which can be ascer-
tained in their regard. Thus, what the evi-
dence demonstrates, that Ecclesiastical Reve-
nues, including Tithes, are the patrimony of the
poor, conjointly with the Clergy,' is kept alto-
gether out of view, whilst the compiler of the
report exerts his ingenuity to contrast the fixed-
ness of the present invasion or spoliation of
Church Property by the Clergy, with the alleged
uncertainty of the ancient znede of dividing that
property. A Parliamentary Report ought not
to be liable to this charge, or to the sus-
picion of having suppressed, to serve a pur-
pose, a most important truth." Dr. DOYLE
then proceeds to investigate, in a keen
and searching spirit, the origin of the claims
of the Protestant Clergy to the monopoly
of tithes in Ireland. He proves incontestably,
that even on the plea of " prescription" they
have no valid title to this monopoly, for that it
was founded on aggression and usurpation. The
Church revenues in Ireland, says the Learned
Prelate, " were consigned by our pious ances-
tors to the maintenance of religion and the sup-
port of the poor." How religion has been maintained
by this revenue, in accordance with the intention
of the founders, no one acquainted with the
past and present state of Ireland need inquire ;
how the poor have been maintained, it is
equally superfluous to inquire, when the damn-
ing fact stares us daily in the face, that the most
fruitful country in Europe, abounding in the
richest soil, the most commodious harbours, the
noblest rivers, is cursed with a degraded and im-
poverished peasantry, hundreds of whom annually
fall victims to fevers, solely brought on by starva-
tion, while an alien priesthood, whose tenets the
majority of the Irish population hold in abhor-
rence, live in the most extravagant degree of
splendour, and make themselves known through-
out Ireland solely by their exactions and per-
secutions.

Dr. DOYLE closes his letter by an exposure
of Mr. STANLEY'S gross misgovernment as
Irish Secretary. He shows that though he
professes the liberal principle of doing justice to
both parties, he renders himself obnoxious
to the Catholic, without in the slightest
degree conciliating the Orangeman. g‘ And
this error," concludes Dr. DOYLE, Mr.
STANLEY commits, because, like all his
predecessors in office, he " considers Ireland as
in a great degree a Protestant country, and con-
founds her Protestantism with the creed and
profession of the established church." Therg
is infinite truth and sagacity in this remark.

By the Echo steamer, we have received Lis-
bon Gazettes of the 2d and 3d instant. The
Lisbon Gazettes from the 10th of June to the
Ist of July inclusive (No. 137 to 153) have
not come to hand. The two numbers of the 2d
and 3d inst. have no news of the Emperor Don
PEDRO, except a statement, quoted, as it appears
from some French paper, that many English and
others had forsaken him, complaining of want
of pay and provisions, which may be considered
as pure invention :--