The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1836-07-22 00:00:00

;erious

state
Jong

.ching.
o have
onsent

o, will

eanest

overn-

ill not

v have

verily

arse of

catchy

re are

nment

.eform

led in
ce the
th the

le has

find in

ng an
News-

ame of
or this

: accu-

rposes

return
Mr.

ing or
emer-

consi-
otions.

fair to

their

isumed
rietors

glish,
,awlers

ELLOR

lat. de-

• a dis-
d, and

E con'

inches
tis µ•ill
ferald,

penny:
ry well

fair to

ion 00
10th of

Pro'
gene;
s;
an t
heartY

I saki•
charge
eulo-
-
cart of
volved

ipcipat

than
as Mr.
wpt to

1," be-
Wbik

,JuLv 2 0 P 436
•

and Radical yelpers have dinged into our ears what they
term the shameful injustice of giving money to keep the
Irish Protestant Clergy from starving, although these
very men are themselves the cause of the refusal of tithe
On the part of the Irish yeomanry and peasantry.
- Relative to this Million Fund a little light has been let
in by an official return to a motion in an account of "the
'tanner in which the Million sterling voted to the Irish
Clergy
has been appropriated, specifying the name and
residence of each borrower, the sum advanced, the amount
of tithe alleged to be in arrear, and whether for more
than one year, the estimated yearly value of the borrow-
er's preferment," &c. The wording of this return shows,
beyond dispute, the object of the loan. It was, as we
have said, to keep the Irish Protestant Clergy from stars-.
ing for want, on account of the non-payment of their law-
ful and just due.
Nnw mark both the meanness and iniquities of Whig-
ger.Y. .In the list of persons who have fingered this fund
are found the names of landlords of all sorts and sizes ;
of Roman Catholic tithe-owners, to wit, RONAYNE, SHELL,
BARRON, LALOR: Lord SoUTHWELL, a Popish Absentee,
has the meanness to pocket £35; Lord Essr.x, a Whig
Absentee, takes £B2; and the Duke of DEVONSHIRE,
another Whig Absentee, and a great supporter of justice
to irelind,' grabs the comfortable slice of £3,440. Sums
of various amount have fallen to the lot of Lords SHAN-
NON. MEATH, DONOUGHMORE, HEADFORT, LISMoRE,
CAREW, DILLON, &c. There are also several Conserve
tive Noblemen who have stretched out their hands for a
share of the spoil, namely, Lords NORBURY, DOWNSHIRE,
and Vksct. But these latter impropriators, as the Times
observes, are not inconsistent, if blameable, as they, un-
like the others whose names we have quoted, bring no
charge against the Clergy for vindicating their rights;
nor do they hypocritically swell the clamour against the
tithe system while in the act of holding out their hands
to benefit by it.
But what are we tii say of a Government that permits
such unwarrantable " appropriations ?" We confess that
We. have not words to express what we feel on the sub-
ject. We expect from the men in power a strong hos-
ttlity against the Church; but we did not expect to see
them wind it in practices which are a thousand times
more disgraceful than robbery on the highway. In this
case.the:nation is plundered on the one hand, and the
elergy on the other; for while the Duke of DEVONSHIRE
Was fribbling away his £3,440 in the purchase of toys at
Faris, or on ices and foreign fiddlers in London, many a
meritorious Clergyman and his innocent family were
wholly dependent for subsistence on the hand of charity•
riot having been able to obtain one farthing of the Par-
liamentary Million.

A very pretty disclosure has been made in the House
of Peers in the examination of witnesses in support of
ine Stafford Disfranchisement Bill.

11 1831, Si;-.IL-N-CA-m-PnE-ul:the present Attorney-
General, contested Stafford, and it is proved by the agent
of his confidential agent, that Sir JOHN knowingly and
wittingly, and as a matter of calculation, paid £2,100 in
bribing. such of the electors as chose to sell their votes to
i
; and nearly six hundred, it appears, did so.
7,,Y et this same Whig-Attorney-General has lately
gewn his horror of bribery at elections in various ways,
and particularly by prosecuting the Ipswich cases.
After what has of late taken place in the Commons, we
SITPOse that Sir JOHN'S case—judicially proved on oath—
will not be forgotten.