The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1836-12-23 00:00:00

Voctrp.

[The f Iluwing song, Which is to be sung at the Glasgow Conservative
Didner, hascheen Int Warded to 'the Metropolitan Consernatirie Jour-
nal :)r its author, W. H. BELLMtIY, Eig., of Breinton Lodge, near
ilerefulu.]

THE, KING'S APPEAL.
"WILL YOU STAND BY NUE?"
TUNR—" Scots telta late tvi' Wallace bled."

Britons ! who have hearts to feel
For England's Kite. for Enjla.nd's weal,
•
To you he makes Xts pro peal,
"•Will you standby. sue!"
Hear, bear ye nut your Sovereigns call!
0-, eau ye see your country fall !
Up 1 up ! and save her, true men, all,
Peer, Peasant, Yeomanry!
'For all, our brave forefathers rear'd.
I,NA- all, that England once rever'd. •
'Far all.ltitat• most her name entlearq, •
• For these, the strife will be!
TneyConiel they come I—The Throne surround
Let not deo recreant heart be found,
'Close, close your ranks 1 and stand your ground!
Ye brave Conservacy!
•
Oh, save this fair, this favuur'd land,
From dark
•Rebellion's desp'rate hand;
?mai Agitation's madd'ning brand,
Oh, save your Peasantry !
Arise!'and stem the tearful tide,
'Ere Britain's soil with blood be dyed.
And midnight fires flash far and wide-
. Their.dreadful heaconry.

Avert—ye maw--tour counky's late,
Your King, your laws. your Church, your State
Save, save them all too late,
Thi! tardy stand will he!
'thebanner floats, the trumpet's blown
'Guard, guard your altars"! shield the throne!
Your King's, tour country's, aod your own—
To death! onvictory! .

,Ca.VTEMPORARY PRESS.

The speech of the rev. prieit O'Malley, delivered in
the Rebel Rent Association, to which we alluded in The
Times of yesterday, proves the man to be a speaker of
n o meanl ability—that is to say, ability taken in the fa-
•votiratile sense of the word, and of still greater if re-
garded in the sinister signification, for it is a speech- of
some logic and of consummate art. The rev. gentleman
tells a great many truths in this discourse and calls seve-
ral things by their right names.; but if we were to with-
draw our attention from the object for the sake of which
such a number of sound Statements are elaborated by
this priestly politician, we should be in pretty much the
same predicament as if, we forgot why it is that a certain
.yet more notorious black- robed personage is said to gitote
Scriptures on occasion=—in other words, we should be wo-
fully taken in and-hunibugged. Tile skill of Mr. Priest
O'Malley shows itself by the correct and plausible man-
ner in which he -prepares or gets up his-historical and
political premises, while he half conceals from view the•

;Purpose tallith pervades his whole eomposition—viz., the
final destruction .of the temporal Protestant Chuteit, by
making the subsistence of the established clergy depend-
ent, every returning year, on the vote of a majority of
the:House of Commons, or on a ministerial budget.
That-for which Mr. Daniel O'Connell has been loudly
bellowing year after year, this long headed MaChiavel
exclaims against, as not merely a wasteful, but an infa-
mous, job, on a leVel in point of profligacy with that of
'" lay impropriations," or with the confiscation of church
lands for such minions as the Russells of the 16th century;
who owed the unhallowed spoils of the church to the ca-
pricious prodigality of a tyrant of Whom they were worthy
to: be bondsmen. Father O'Malley will not hear of tithe-
being abolished—oh. no ! because it is " property—the
oldest property in the country"—(wonderful to say, this
at least is true).; though Parliament, therefore, " may go
the full length of abolishing by hundreds the parsons
themselves, it will never, presume to say, so long us; the
laws of property are held sacred, let tithes be abolished."-
No, &V no means, Truth Father, O'Malley, don't think of
abolishing tithes, and moreover you m ust• not give them
to the prOpiletors of the other nine-tenths of the landed
produce, inasmuch as they (the landlords) never, had the
smallest right to- them, having bought or inherited their
.propesty.. But nevertheless, "sacred as are the laws of
.property;" "yon must take them away from the Protest-
ant clergy," Nitoseproperty they ha% e.been for centuries
past; and why ? Because we Papists have an "invin-
cible repugnance" to pay them (that is, to respect the
" sacred" rights of property) and not merely to pay them
tithe, but to pay them any equivalent fur tithe in the
shape of an increased rent to the landlord, out of which
any particle of subsistence to the Protestant clergy can
by_possibility -come I This is somewhat lofty, we deem,
and not the most consistent thing in the world, for a
champion of the "sacred" rights of property. He re-
fuses the" tithe to the landlord on a clear principle of jos.-
ticte, and,in that he is right. He wrests them from the
clergy on a ground, which, if his profession,of a love of
"jnstiee" be worth a straw, is downright wicked robbery
--1-na nely, that of the reluctance of a third party, having
no real concern whatsoever with the tithe7--to wit, the
Popish tenantry—to pay . it, or eVen to see it paid by
others, to the Protestant clergy, its legal, undoubted, in-
disputable owners, " so long as the laws of property are
held sacred:"
What, then, does this pious disposer of the goods of
others insist on doing with the tithes, which he neither
leaves to their lawful possessors, nor gives to the owners
'of the bulk of the soil whence they spring, nor suffers to
beaimply abolished ? Like one who is used to fall upon
his legs, he hits apon a promising expedient, which is,
"to take the tithe , from both 'parson
,and landlord, and
devote ;it to better purposes than either seem disposed
for." Thetis, he Transfers them to those whom he calls
"the poor," to be,distributed of course by Mr. O'Malley
and his brethren, in such proportions as they please, and.
to whom they please, bridging within the description of
"the poor"; just those whom
,they, the aspiring, greedy,
despotic, intriguing, Popish priests of Ireland, find the:
readiest and fittest tools of their own schemes, and the
most effective persecutors of the whole PrOtestant popu-
lation.
This plan is neither more nor less than what we saw
and said from the beginning would result out °Eche ap-
propriation clause of Lords Morpeth and John Russell.
it was manifest that "surplus" meant as much as the
robbers of the church could lay their hands on; and here
the whole murder comes out. But stop a moment.-
-O'Connell delights in the instalment system. He says,
`" Let the Whigs but give me a part, and I will soon get
the whole from them." How this squares with the ar- '
gutnents and assurances of ministers, is another ques-.
tion, and a queer one. Says Daniel O'Connell the Ro-
man Catholics of Ireland will no longer tolerate the Pro-
testant established church; while the Ministers tell us,,
" the Roman Catholics will be the best behaved people
in the world, if you (the Conservatives) agree to this
appropriation clause of oars, which at the end of forty.
two years is to give them £50,000 per annum." And
these same Min;sters have the impudence to 'charge the,
House of Lords with madly opposing Like "pacification.
of Ireland" by their resistance to this measure ! What
then shall we =believe ?
Again, Father O'Malley, in the speech to which we
are adverting, has these words, so musical to the ears of
•90. noble viscount " Aseljus,:"—No party in Dither
house of parliament could " reasonably expect—or I
believe did expect—the measure of last session respect-
ing tithes to be final," (meaning the Whig-radical appro-
priation measure.) "To expect it could satisfy the
people of Ireland really implies an insult to their sense
and spirit." We know not what " any parties may have
Expected." but we do know what the wing ministers
'said. Although Father O'Malley declares that to ex-
•pect the appropriation clause " would satisfy the people
of Ireland," implies an insult to their understanding, we
do- know, and su dues all England with us, that Lord
John Russell and the rest -of-the whig junta had no other
semblance of are argument to offer the House of Com-
mons, nor Lord Melbourne the House of Lords, but tile
Angle one that their appropriation bill " would pacify ,
the people of Ireland," and that' the conservative peers
Wlio opposed-. the bill were guilty of perpetuating agita-
tion and disturbance. Why, then; let as ask, was there
ever such btaien andaeity—was there ever in the world
.etiCh flagitious baseness as that of the ministers who
• :alleged what even their privy councillor O'Connell.
!assured them, and what this O'Malley, in the name of
:alle whole Irish priesthood, confirms to them, was a hare;
laced falsehbod—namely, that the bill that ther were
``ramming down our throats would be attended with he-
neficial results, which these papist spokesmen themselves
ajgclare-it would be " an insult to the people of Ireland to
expect from them ?" Can these ministers ever again'
'dare to assert any proposition whatever without exposing
%truth itself, when it falls from them, .to be distrusted ?-
'tan they ever held up their heads again in parliament ?
'Miley had a remnant of honest conscience in their'
!natures, they. would hide themselves from public. zaze
,and scorn. Mr. O'Malley, in expatiating upon the in-
, sufficieney of even an absolute relief of the papists front a
--shilling of tithe to the protestant clergy, announces that
'they shall not be paid even under the form of rent, and in
these terms—listen to them, reader—" A t hire rent paid b',
alle 6wtiered to the conqueror's creed, is just as much a
•meror>rial of anationalaathjugatior. as a t i the composit ion,"
There them lies the sting. There must remain no me=
merle] that Ireland was ever a conquered country
Very well, what does that imply ?
.Is a Protestant
church a inure signal monument of such a past event
than a legilative union with Great Britain ? No, cer;
tainly ; and that ie the true key to the popish popular
outcry for a repeal of the union. Is the condition -a '
church property and the right of the clergy any more
vominent.memorial of the conquest of Ireland than is
• the actual distribution of lay property throughout the
"sod? • 'Unquestionably not ; and therefore,- exclaims
'O'Connell; all' Protestaot property must be confiscatedi
s`t
-le .is. the
of
_git bade oi!.estahl Church of Ireland a more inteths
Ism:ring the.cro conquest, than an A'nglisli Protestant
-.-itriking •or eonspielo.ireiandY . Assuredlynorisitlonnogt,hsahloftilsad
14,i4iAirOloyiLrcum.tanZiin prof.'
..iiiiie,4l.4444.,,bdutiol. }., eun,ol , every one ar.i4ol;
111
..ing the sovereignty of tt,,,-. T's Ikill.be heard rkdooile
xusnaorial of national subjogatrof be heard
" a
4 with ill 0 . limit ' em-