The Sun.
London, England, 1829-10-22 00:00:00

\‘'

OF TILE PUi3LIC JOURNALS.

votes in Parliament of an extensive borough con-
nexion. What business, then, has Dr. Thomas
Elrington with a revenue, by his own acknow-
ledgment, of 5,000/. per annum ? or Dr.
Magee of Dublin with 8,0001. per annum ?
o r the Bishop of Derry, with 15,0001. !! Such
accumulations, we say, are monstrous in such
hands as these. 15,000/. a year to Dr. Knox
—a man wholly undistinguished in his profes-
sion as a clergyman, and no otherwise in private
life than by being brother of Lord Northland
And to save men like these from sacrificing six-
pence of their frightful revenues, three or four
parishes are thrown into one, that the poor hack
of an incumbent may have enough to exist upon
—that out of three parishes two, if not all, shall
he flung into the arms of the Catholic priest ;
and Mr. Leslie Foster, and others of his click, be
brought to their wits' ends for devices to prove
that Popery is not increasing throughout Ireland.
We love the Protestant Church too well to look
at such things without alarm. The Church of

A correspondence has been copied into the
Papers, between a noble reformer of the Church
in Ireland, and an anti-reformation Bishop. Be,
tween such combatants, this is a ticklish conten-
tion ; but it proves at least one interesting fact—
namely, that the anti-reforming dignitaries of the
Irish Church have been alarmed. We are is?-.
tremely glad to see it. Dr. Thomas Elrington,
once Provost of Trinity
,Col/ege, Dublin, the
most distinguished act of whose administration
was the shuttinB tip of the Historical Society, and
who has sine° written various political pamph-
lets, more indicative of a spirit which would have
beer zealous in any cause, than of that discre-
tion which might have qualified him to judge be-
tween a good cause and a bad one,—Dr. El-
rington, we say, being now Bishop of Ferns,
has, in opposition to the sentiments expressed
by Lord Mountcashel, and entertained by many
wise and good men who have not yet openly de-
clared them, touching the sort of Church Esta-
blishment which the country requires, taken up
the cudgels for the Church of Ireland as it
is,--unions, pluralities, non-residence, corrupt
patronage, luxurious rectors, half-famished
curates, and Bishops, with, on • his own con-
fession,,Afteen thousand pounds a year from their
sees! Pluralists, paupers, princes, down they slip
through the gullet of this translated optimist.—
He swallows anti digests them, horseshoes and
all, and then lets off a remonstrance as long as
the rent•roll of his own Bishopric, because the
Noble Earl cannot bolt the abuses of church
.government wholesale with as little uneasiness of
Otti stomach as bails his right reverence ; and
still worse, because he displays certain spiritual
cravings which Dr. Elrington thinks it would
be treason to satisfy at the price of a temporal
purgation. Glancing over the letters of these
two friends of the church establishment, we are
not much delighted to observe that the Learned
13ishop's solicitude is far more carefully directed
to the carnal wants of the pastors than to the
salvation of their flocks, which latter object,
indeed, we regret to find, has not called
forth one single sentence, or syllable, even
of incidental notice from the Reverend
Bishop, whose letter is, from first to
last, the most worldly-minded and tradesman-
like production that we ever had the misfortune
to hear of; except some quotations from the
wanks of another prelate holding an archiepisco-
pal see. Dr. Elrington begins by attaching a
nick-name to the assembly for church reform, at
Cork, which he terms a " Lay Synod," as if it
were usurping the prerogatives of the clergy.
Upon this we can only say, that if the church
will not rectify its own abuses, but on the other
hand throw every sort of obstacle in the way of
their removal, the laity, for whose welfare the
church was established, and from whose means it
continues to be supported, has an unquestionable
right to institute inquiries, and reforms also,
when proved to be necessary, through other autho-
rity than than that of an ecclesiastical " Synod."
Bishop Elrington deprecates the proposed peti-
lion to Parliament, because it must " inevitably
lead to the same consequences which took place
in England two centuries ago,"—to wit, in the
earlier part of the reign of Charles I. " A
committee of religion," says this prophetic Pre-
late, will consequently be formed ; " and a com-
mittee of religion, like that in which the Com-
mons in 1628 censured Bishops as favourers of
Popery, and as holding heretical opinions, arid
tomplained that pious, laborious, and orthodox
ministers were discouraged, will be the next step
on the part of the Ccinnzons"-(but how if the
Lords. join in ?)—" who would instantly perceive
the opening which such a state of things would
Afoul them to increase their power !" Verily
this learned Doctor has a discriminating genius.
The country is now in a :tate so precisely similar
to that of 1628, that an inquiry into the church
abuses by the laity of the establishment itself,
must infallibly be attended with the same sub-
version of the church as was accomplished
through the Presbyterian and Puritan interests
in the time of the-Long Parliament ! At that
rate, and by virtue of the learned Bishop's argu-
ment is/ terrorem, no matter what may be the
ecclesiastical grievances complained of, to redress
thent—nay, to inquire into their existence or
amount, is at all times, and under any circum-
stances, a thing to be nbliorred by faithful and
loyal Protestants. The Bishop states that the
unions are in general of vicarages ill paid and
destitute of churches, which were destroyed in
the civil wars, and have not yet been rebuilt.—
The more shame for those who united large
parishes and left churches in ruins, when,'
f the good of the people, and of the Protestant
religion, had been looked to, instead of the
convenience or comforts of clergymen, the
ruined churches would have been rebuilt, and
the stipends of half-paid vicars and curates en-
larged, out of funds which have been scanda-
lously misappropriated. We are no advocates
for a perfect equality of church livings, any more
than Lord Mountcashel ; but there exists an
enormous inequality, leaving a great number or,
industrious clergy unrecompensed for their holy •
labours. This inequality might, with sound wis-
(loin and equity, be reduced. Among other re-
sources for the purpose, Dr. Elrington himself
has furnished one. We have never hesitated to
affirm that the Irish Bishoprics are inordinately
rich, unbecoming the modesty, and perilous to
the conscience, of any ministers of the gospel.—
Ireland is a cheap country compared with this ;
an Irish Bishop can live better on his see for
2,0001. per annum than an English Bishop for
4,0001. 3,0001. a year would be an ample reve-
nue for an Irish resident Bishop, and 5,0001. for
an Archbishop, summoned as he is but once in
four years to Parliament. Such an income
would be deemed an abundant reward for their
professional services by men of learning and piety,
though it might not tempt the cupidity of poli-
tical adventurers, or the vanity of fine gentlemen,
or be accepted in the person of a noble pauper as
an adequate return from the Minister for the

Ireland, corrupt in its administration as its doe-
trines arc perfect, must and will be purified of
its temporal dross, in spite of Dr. Thomas
Elrington, who is, at the same time, far from
• the worst among its members. Parliament, we
have reason to suspect, will have the whole of
this great interest presented to it before many
months shall have gone round ; and all a good
Protestant need be anxious about is, that the sub-
ject should be warily investigated.—Times.
A fine scene will be exhibited this day at the
Surrey Sessions. The question as to whether
intermediate brewers shall retail beer in front of
their premises, comes on ; and we think, with-
, out laying claim to prophetic powers, we could
tell beforehand how such a question would be
decided by the Great Unpaid. The great
brewers have, unfortunately for the country,
trusted so much to their power over Justices, as
to invest large sums in the purchase of licensed
houses, and the price paid for the license is, as
it should be, added to the price of beer. To
relieve the poor from the oppressive effects of
this monopoly, Lord Goderich, one of the best-
hearted men alive, thought he might venture to
raise up the class of intermediate brewers, who
s':ould be able to carry on their operation inde-
pendently of Brewers and Justices. That the
brewers would submit patiently to this, was not
to be expe(ted. It is natural that the fight
should take place in a county where it is in evi-
dence that brewers and distillers are in the habit
of treating the Justices on licensing days, and
brewers' hodmakers kindly consent to act as
Justices. Every man now-a-days is engrossed
by a regard for the morals of his neighbours;
and what a dreadful shock must morals receive
by the liberty to purchase intermediate beer in
front of a house. The Justices arc guardians
of morals, are they not ? If. the brewers could
have only contrived to make the brewing inter.
mediate beer so expensive that it could not be
afforded to the consumer for less than their own,
heightened by the value given by the license to
a house, the scheme might have been knocked
in the head at once. By contriving as they did
to obtain the introduction of a clause to prevent
small beer front being made by the intermediate
brewers, they of course must have added greatly
to the expellee of the latter ; but still it would
seem that enough has not been done for the
great brewers.—Morning Chronicle.
The Globe observes, with reference to some
observations in the Chronicle of yesterday :
" The Chronicle assume, somewhat hastily, that
the changes here spoken of in the relative position
of the smaller or greater gentry, to the advantage of
the latter, has really taken place—and if it has taken
place, we do not think that it is sufficient to account
for the evils which the Chronicle complains of. We
very much doubt whether the Peers which our con-
temporary
has enumerated rise in a more remark-
able manner above the common level of fortune than ,

the Earls of Arundel, Bedford, Northumberland,
Oxford, Newcastle, Ormonde, and perhaps as many

_ . .
more, in the time of Charles the First. The union
and severance of fortunes has heel' always in pro-
gress in this as in most other countries ; and as the
money incomes of all classes have increased, those
of the highest are nominally large in proportion to
the rest.

" But if the supposition of the Chronicle were
correct, we do not see that it accounts for the state
of things which the Chronicle deplores. If this
dozen of individuals possess incomes so large in pro-
portion to the secondary gentry, it becomes more
difficult for them to derive individually a share from
the public plunder equivalent to their loss by the
public waste.
" Taking the names which the Chronicle has enu-
merated, do these nine of the richest Peers, iu point
of fact, draw front the public purse, for themselves
and their relatives, incomes much larger than their
own direct and indirect contributions to the public
income ? and might not, in fact, a Ministry carry
on the public affairs very smoothly with these nine
persons, and any nine others, in opposition to its
measures?

" It appears to us that we should only mislead
ourselves if we sought to believe that the few rich
Peers whom the Chronicle regards as the prime
sources of evil have any great effect in corrupting
the principles of the population. Eight of them,
who have been long in public life, entertain opinions
of very different shades, and what principles they
have collectively instilled into the people it would
puzzle us to say. What the ninth of them may
effect the nation has not had time to see; at least,
as yet, we do not perceive any sensible change in
the principles of the population since the coming of
age of the Duke of Buccleuch.
" It requires but little acquaintance with England
to discover that the strength of the existing sys-
tem, with all its corruptions, is to be found ins the
support, not of a dozen or two of the richest fami-
lies, but of the great mass of the secondary gentry,
whose existence the Chronicle considers so transitory
and precarious. It was from this class that the great
opposition in Ireland to the tolerant system which
has been introduced there originated. It is because
almost every man of activity and talents of this
class is enlisted by his interests in favoiir of the pre-
sent system, that any Parliamentary reform which
would create a check on the public expenditure
meets with such formidable opposition. To say that
the few families who are, perhaps, least of all inte-
rested in the support of abuses, corrupt the rest, ap-
pears to us to be beginning at the wrong end. The
strength of the aristocracy is not that its power has
been confined to a few, but that it is extended to
many ; not that it is narrow, but that it is broad and
comprehensive. A few examples of enormous wealth
may have some corrupting effect, but this is indi-
rect and moral, and not direct political operation.
_ " We perfectly agree with the Chronicle that the
mass of the property of the country (as contradis-
tinguished from the property of those who have
enough wealth to live idly) is not sufficiently repre-
sented ; and we should be glad to believe that the
only opposition to a reform would be found either in
the direct or indirect power of a few great families.
If it were so, we should not find that, even in
times when the cry of distress is loudest, reform of
Parliament is almost the last subject which a very
large proportion of the people will look to; and free
trade, or any other bugbear, however insignificant,
to which it is possible to attribute the slightest
effect, is made the sole cause of the calamities of
the nation."

We admit that our observations, from not
being sufficiently guarded, are in some sort
open to the remarks of our contemporary. In
singling out a small number of Noblemen, as
we did, as possessed of so large a share of the

property of their order, it was far from being an
object to show that the individuals alluded to
derived more from t'leir share of the money
wrung from the people than was taken from