The Sun.
London, England, 1835-07-07 00:00:00

LONDON, TUESDAY EVENING, JULY 7, 1835.

Just published, and on sale at all Booksellers, Cheap Editions of
MR. BULWER'S NOVELS.
Comprising,--
I. PELHAM. With a Portrait 3. The DISOWNED. 3 Vols.
of the Author, a New Pre- 12s. bound.
face and Notes. 2 Vols. 4. DEVEREUX. 3 Vols. 12s.
10s. bound. bound.
2. PAUL CLIFFORD. 3Vols. 5. FALKLAND. 1 Vol.
18s. bound.
N.B. Either of the wor
Published for Henry Colburn
sellers.

Ls may be had separately.
)3, R. Bentley. Sold by all Book-

On the 18th inst., in 2 vols. Bvo., with Plates, price 245.,
A SUMMER RAMBLE IN SYRIA,
With a Tartar Trip from
ALEPPO TO STAMBOUL.
By the Rev. VERE. MONRO.
Richard Bentley, 8, New Burlington-street,
Publisher in Ordinary to his Majesty.

MR. COOPER'S NEW WORK.
This day was published, in 3 vols. post Bvo.,
H E MO N I K IN S.
A TALE.
By J. FENIMQRE COOPER, Esq.
Author of " The Spy," " The Pilot," &c.
Richard Bentley, 8, New Burlington-street.

THE NEW WORK EDITED BY LADY DACRE.
In 3 vols., post Bvo.,
TALES OF THE PEERAGE
AND THE PEASANTRY.
_ . .

I3v the Author of " The Chaperon."
WAS PUBLISHED THIS DAY.
Richard Bentley, 8, New Burlington-street.
Agents for Scotland, Messrs. Bell and Bradfute, Edinburgh ; for
Ireland, Mr. John Cumming, Dublin.

SPIRIT OF THE PUBLIC JOURNALS.

Let our readers imagine two seventy-fours engaged
in deadly combat, and a little gun-brig firing alternately
at each of them ; such is the position which we have
seen recently occupied by Lord Stanley and the small
circle of mock Whigs, Tory-Radicals, Waverers, and
Trimmers, of which he was the nucleus. The first
broadside is directed against the Speaker's Chair ; the
next charge is sent full in the face of a certain would-
be Ambassador, and a Whig volley against Conserva-
tive Associations is neutralized by a Tory discharge of
grape and small shot at divers clauses of the Cor-
poration Reform Bill ; but a policy like this could
scarcely be expected to be long adhered to, and
we now see Lord Stanley departing from that spe-
cies of belligerent neutrality (a neutrality which
consisted in doing equal mischief to both parties),
and taking his station upon that side of the House
with which we must infer that his politics on the whole
are now most in accordance : or is the present ap-
proximation a mere movement of irritation and of
temper ? Lord Stanley, a scion of one of the noblest
Whig families in the kingdom, was petted and praised
on his first entry into Parliament, and the habit seems
to have continued ever since. It is not impossible
that the hauteur and caprice which are so conspicuous
in the deportment of this Noble Lord may depend in
some measure upon the incense which his vanity has
been continually receiving from injudicious friends and
opponents. Scarcely had he delivered his maiden
address, which happened in 1824, on the occasion of
a Local Bill, when we find the veteran Sir James
Mackintosh lauding him for " a speech which af-
forded the strongest promise that the talents which the
Hon. Member had displayed in supporting the local in-
terests of his constituents would be exerted with equal
ardour and effect in maintaining the rights and in-
terests of his country ;" and further declaring that" no
man could have witnessed with greater satisfaction
than himself an accession to the talents of the House
which was calculated to give lustre to its character and
strengthen its iyluence ; and it was more particularly
a subject of satisfaction to him when he reflected that
those talents were likely to be employed in supporting
principles which he conscientiously believed to be most
beneficial to the country." This is pretty well for a
young gentleman speaking a few sentences of good
English upon a Manchester Gas-Light Bill. Mr.
Stanley's next speech was made upon the occasion of
a motion of inquiry into the state of the Irish Church,
with a view to ascertain " whether the present Church
Establishment of Ireland be not more than commensu-
rate to the services to be performed, both as regards
the number of persons employed, and the incomes they
receive." So moved Mr. Hume, and Mr. Stanley
took then the same course which he has followed
ever since, regretting his being compelled to sepa-
rate himself from those with whom he usually
acted, and maintaining that High Church principle of
the inviolability of Church property which he has ever
consistently and strenuously defended, and for the
maintenance of which he has shown himself ready to
sacrifice both himself and his party. Mr. Stanley's
doctrine was and is, that Church property is exactly
like private property, and is not to be interfered with,
except under the same necessity and upon the same
conditions which would warrant an interference with
private property. This principle or prejudice appears
to be so deeply rooted in Lord Stanley's mind, that
he always takes it for granted as a self-evident truth,
and will not hear reason or admit of any doubt
upon the subject. Yet what do those who call
themselves par excellence " friends of the Church"
say upon the score of ecclesiastical revenues ? Why
they say, that if the Commission of Inquiry into
the English Church should report that the " pro-
perty" at present devoted to religious purposes
was not sufficient to furnish religious instruction
to the members of the Church (and the Standard
hinted that that might probably the case), it would be
the bounden duty of Parliament to make further provi-
sion for the wants of the Church. Would Lord Stan-
ley, let us ask, oppose such a proposition if made and
supported by sufficient evidence ? If not, upon what
possible grounds could he give his support to an aug-
mentation of ecclesiastical " property," which did not
at once establish a wide distinction between such a
provision for the Ministers of the Church and pri-
vate property ! What should we think of a merchant
ap e tri
etiaosiioi
nnag Parliament
otro ama
landlord
up
and
ord income
for toa
Parliamentary grant to enable him to maintain
his station in his county ? The very supposition
of any grounds for such a demand, which would
not be absolutely ludicrous, can only go upon an
admitted relation between the wants and the
revenues of the Church—between services re-
quired and performed, and funds appropriated for
their adequate remuneration. If Parliament might be
required to make up a deficiency, they ought to be
able to " appropriate" a surplus—both being alike
opposed to the case of private property. Can Lord
Stanley possibly argue that the Church revenues, if
inadequate, may be increased, but if superfluous can-
not be diminished—that a Church Commission in
England may call upon Parliament with propriety to
make a further provision, if circumstances should
warrant it, for the religious instruction of the members
of the Church, and yet, though a Church Commis-
sion in Ireland may report that in that part of the
United Kingdom there is a superfluity of Church
" property,"—in the one case it would be a duty to
add, in the other it would be " spoliation" to dimi-
nish ? What is this but to build up a wall in order to
knock one's head against it ? But to return to our
subject. Mr. Stanley early distinguished himself
for his powers in debate, and has on some occasions
been brought into collision with the present leader of
that section of the House among whom he has recently
planted himself, when the experienced and wily tacti-
cian was rather mauled by the home thrusts of our
plain-dealing Whig. Sir Robert cut rather a poor
figure in the East Retford affair ; and his professions
of candour and sincerity did not avail to ward off the
indignant reproaches of Mr. Stanley for the manifest
duplicity and jesuitical procedure which characterized
his conduct in that affair. Mr. Peel had previously
declared his acquiescence in the disfranchisement both
of Penryn and East Retford, and, as a sort of com-
promise between conflicting interests, that the one fran-
chise should be given to a " large commercial town,"
and the other to the " agricultural interest," by throw-
ing it into the, Hundred. Mr. Peel being leader
of the House of Commons, and an influential
Member of the Government, of course every one
would suppose that he spoke with a knowledge
of the sentiments of the Government. The Penryn
Bill was passed first, and Mr. Peel then distinctly de-
clared that he had no objection to give that franchise
to a " large commercial town," and accordingly
" Manchester" was added to the preamble of the
without opposition on the part of the Government in
the Commons ; and that was held out as a compro-
mise, to induce the Commons to agree in giving the
franchise of East Retford—not to Birmingham, but
to the Hundred of Bassetlaw. But when the other
Bill get into the Lords, it became pretty evident
that, in the shape in which it was sent up, it
would not be passed ; and then Mr. Peel was
reminded of his understanding, and since the Lords
would not give the franchise of Penryn to a
" large commercial town," he was asked to con-
sent to give that of East Retford to the same
interest. The Home Secretary, however, denied
having given any pledge on the subject, and
declared that he could not pretend to say what
the Lords bad done. He had no means of learning
what had taken place in that House, and the like.
Mr. Stanley denounced the whole thing as " a mi-
serable compromise," to which he was himself no
party, but which still? as fax as it went, ought to be