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

Voctrk.-

[The foiXowing son& which is to be sung at th. Glas-ow., Conservative
Pinnert hasbeen.lorwarded to the Afettdelitan Conserratire Jour-
blits author, W. H. BILLAMY, Bsivc: of Breintou Lodge. near
Ifecalord:l

~,: ._--

'THE KING'S APPEAL.
" WILL YOU STAND BY MEV
Scats wha hae sve Wallace bled.'

Britons! who have hearts to feel
For *lngland's for England's weal,
'ro,you he makes this prouit apeal,
" Will you stand by me'?"
hear ye'not your Sovereign's call!
can ye see your country fall !
lip! up ! and save her, true men, all,
Peer, Peasant, Yeomanry

• For all, our brave forefathers rear'd,
i Pot all, that bagland once rever'd,
For all, that most her name endear'd,
• • For these the strife will be!
They come ! they come I—The Throne surround !
' 'l:et not one recreant heart be found,
Close, cluse your ranks ! and stand your ground !
Ye brave Conservacy!

Oh, save this fair, this favour'd land,
From dark Rebellion's desp'rate hand,
From Agitation's madd'ning brand,
Oh, save your Peasantry !
Arise! and stem the fearful tide,
l'Bre Britain's soil with blood be dyed,
And midnight fires flash far and wide
Their dreadful beaconry.

Avert—ye may—your country's fate.
Your King, your laws, your Church, your State
Save, save them all—or, all too late,
The tardy stand will be!
'The banner floats, the trimmers blown :
Gard. sruard your altars! shield the throne!
Your King's, your country's, and your own—
To death ! or victory !

CONTEMPORARY PRESk

,The Speeeh of the rev. priest O'Malley, delivered in
the Rebel Rent Association, to which we alluded in The
Times of yesterday, preves the, nian to be a,speaker of
no mean ahility.---that is to say, ability taken in the fa-
vqurable 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. Rentleman
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 aitention from the object for the sake of which
such a number of sound statements are elaborated by
this priestly pclitician, se should he in pretty much the
same predicament as if we forgot why;it is that a certain
yet inure notorious black-robed persoriage is said to (Note
Scriptures on occasion—in other words, we should be wil-
fully taken. in and'humbugged. The 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 time
purpose winch pervades his whole composition—viz., the
final destruction of the temporal Protestant Church, by
making the subsistence, of the established clergy depend-
ent, every returning year, on the vote of a majority of
theHease of Commons, or on a ministerial budget.
That for which Mr. Daniel O'Connell. has been loudly.
bajlinving 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 spoilsof 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 I because it is " property—the
oldest property in the country"—(wonderful to say, this
at-least istrue);) though Parliament, therefore, " may go
the full length of abolishing by hundreds the .parsons
themselves, it will never presume. to say, so long as the
laws of property are held sacred, let tithes be abolished."
No, by no means, quoth Father O'Malley, don't think of
abolishing tithes, and moreover you must not give them
preprietots 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
property. But nevertheless, " sacred as are the lawsOf
property," "you must take them away from the Protest-
ant, clergy," whose property they hate 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 for 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! This is somewhat lofty, we deem,
and not the most consistent thing in the world, for a
cliaMpind of the "sacred" rights of property. He .re,-
fuses the.tithe. to the landlord op .a clear principle of jus-
tice,.and in that he is ,right. He wrests them from .the
clergy on a ground, which, if his profession of a love of
"justice" be worth a straw, is downright wicked robbery
—namely, that of the. reluctance of a third party, having
no real concern whatspever with the tithe-,-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
ntibers•insist on,cluing with the tithes, which he neither
leaves to their lawful possessors, nor gives to the owners
otibe bulk of the'soil whence they spring, nor suffers to
belimply abolished ? Like one who is used. to fall Upon
his legs, he hits upon ,a premising expedient, which
.",to take the tithe.. from both parson and landlord, and
devote it. to better purposes than either seem disposed
for." That is, hefransfer* them to those whom he calls
":the poor," to he distributed of course by, Mr: trMalidy.
and his brethren, in such proportions as, they.plase, and
to whom they please, bringing within the description, of
" theppor 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
nipst 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 of !heap-
pi•opriation clause of Lords Morpeth and John Russell.
It was manifest that " Slll plus" 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,
4‘: Let the whigs but give me a part, and I will,soon get
the whole from them," How this squares with the ar-
guments and assurances of ministers, is another ques-
tion, and a queer one.. says Daniel 'Connell the. Ro-
man Catholics of will no longer tolerate the Pro-
testant established church ; while the.. Ministers tell us,
" the Roman Catholics will be the tiest behaved people
in the world, if you (the Conservatives) agree to this
appropriation clause of ours, which ,at the end.of forty-
tWo',vears is, to give them £5O, oar. per annum." And
these same Ministers have the impudence to charge the
Douse of. Lords with madly opposing the " pacification
of Ireland" by their resistance to this meitsure What
111er/shill we believe? ,

Again, Father O'Malley, in the, speech to which we
are adverting, has:these words, so munical to the ears of
oar noble viscount " Aselius:"---Nio party in either
.house of parliament could " reasditably expect—or I
believe did expect7-7the measure of laSt session reSpect-.
it tithes to be final," (meaning the whig-radicalaippro-
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 rosy have
" Expected." but we do know what, the Whig 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 so does all England with us, that Lord
John Russell and the rest of the whip junta had no other
semblance of an argument to otre.r the House of Com-
mons, nor Lord Melbourne. the House of Lords, but the,
single one that their appropriation bill "would pacify
the people of Ireland," and that the conservative:peers
who opposed the bill Were guilty orperpetoating-agita-,
fion and disturbance. Why, then, let us ask, was there;
tver such brazen audacity—was there ever in the world
such- 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
fhewhele Irish priesthood, confirms to them, was a bare-.
fiee'd falsehood—namely, that the bill that they were
cramming down our throats would be attended with be-
nt fieial results, which these papist spokesmen themselves
ri.eclare.it would be " an insult to the people of Ireland to'
expect from them ?" Can these ministers ever again,
tiatie to assert any proposition whatever without exposing
truth itself, when it falls from theoi, to be distrusted ?
Can they ever hold up their heads again in parliament ?
If they bad a renmint of honest conscience in their
natureaohey would hide themselves from-public gaze
and scorn. Mr. O'Malley, in expatiating upon the.in-
sufficierreynf even an absolute relief of the papistsTrom a
shillikColtithe to the protestrtht, cloqu, announces that
they. shall not be paid even under.the form of rent, audio
these terms—listen to them, reader—" A tithe rent paid by
the conquered to the conqueror's creed, is just as much a
vnentorial of a national subjugation asa tithe coinposi ion."
There then lies the sting. There must remain no me-
morial 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 legislative union with Great Britain.? , No, eer-
tainly ; and that, is the true' key to the popish popular
outcry for:a repeal of the union, Is the condition of
church property and the, right- of the clergrany more
Prominent memorial of the conquest of Ireland than is
tare actual distribution of
,16i property throughout the
'inland? Unquestionably not • and therefore exclaims
Q'fvonnell, alt protestant property must be confiscated.
But is the p.
I:ftextant.
bad.e Church of Ireland a more intelli-
gibleconquest than an E,ngli.th Protestarit:
teeizring t;ce crown ^f Assuredly pot hal,*
striking or co
v?rouf; nor is
.it long, slkbiakl
favourable eircurustatl4,l
bellious
the
ever Of :these
disaffected aud,re
ing the sovereignty of the II "611 t)' 4ftrd d,eitotint,
memorial of national subjugac'tutio"n"°wr