The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1833-03-19 00:00:00

TUE LONDON PRESS.

(FROM THE GUARDIAN AND 'PUBLIC LEDGER.)
litts.wienuncn SPOLIATION BILL.—" This Bill, if it become
law, will amount to a DEPOSITION OF THE KING AS HEAD OF
THE CHURCH; and the passing of it will be a A VIOLATION OF
THE CORONATION OATH—and will constitute, de facto, A RE-
PEAL OF THE UNION."

The foregoing were the last words in our article of
yesterday on the "Irish Ckurch Spoliation Bill." With
the same sentiment it is our intention to commence and
conclude such comments as we may from time to time
make upon this sweeping measure.
" FIRST ARTICLE. And whereas the said Articles," (eight
in number, the first of which, that especially applicable to the
Church, was given by us yesterday,) having, by address of
the respective Houses of Parliament in Great Britain and Ire-
land, been humbly laid before his Majesty, his Majesty has
beeu most graciously pleased to approve of the same ; and to
recommend it to his two Houses of Parliament in Great Bri-
tain and Ireland to consider of such measures as may be neces-
sary for giving effect to the said Articles,: in order, therefore,
to give full effect and validity to the same, be it enacted, by
the King's Most Excellent Majesty, by and with the advice
and consent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and Com-
mons in this present Parliament assembled, and by the autho-
rity of the same, that the said foregoing recited Articles, EACH
AND EVERY ONE OF THEM, according to the true import and
tenor thereof; be ratified, confirmed, and approved, and be, and
they are hereby declared to be, the Articles of the Union. of Great
Britain and Ireland, and the same shall be in force and have
effict FOR EVER, from the Ist day of January which shall be in
the year of our Lord 1801, provided that before that period
an Act shall have been passed by the Parliament of Ireland,
for carrying into effect, in like manner, the said foregoing re-
cited Articles."

We will now proceed with our view of what Lord Al-
thorp -is pleased to call—not its " principle," but—its
"details,'—the clauses. We broke off yesterday at the
40th clause, to which we will again refer, as showing
the truth of the last five words of the foregoing quota
tion from our yesterday's article. This clause expressly
declares, that an act required to be passed in the Par-
liament of Ireland previously to the Act of Union tak-
ing effect, on the Ist of January, 1801, was, in fact,
passed by that Parliament; and was incorporated into,
and made part of an act passed in the Parliament of Eng-
land in the same year, intituled, "An Act for the
Union of Great Britain and Ireland."

What follows ? The second supplementary article re-
cites the very Act of the Irish Parliament—the passing
of which consummated the Act of Union—and thus con-
cludes :

"Be it enacted, that the said Act" (the required Act of
the Irish Parliament) " so herein recited, be taken as a part
of this Act," (the Act of Union,) " and to be deemed to all
intents and purposes incorporated within the same."
In the unavoidable disconnection of our observations
on this subject. we must not lose sight of the conditions
of the Union. The fifth condition, or article, is, that
there shall be one "united Church of England and Ire-
land ;" whose "doctrine, worship, discipline, and go-
vernment shall remain in full force for ever, as the same
are now by law established for the Church of England;
and that the continuance and preservation of the said
united " Church, as the Established Church of Eng-
land and Ireland, shall be deemed and taken to be an
essential and fundamental part of the Union." And, as
we see by the first supplementary article above given,
the conditions, " each and every one of them, according
to the true import and tenor thereof," "shall be in force
and have effect for ever."

Will this bill, then, or will it not be a repeal of the
Union ? We must leave his Majesty's Ministers, with
the consequences of the crime of high treason before
their eyes, to answer this question.
Clause 45 directs that, if the Primate or Bishop of
Derry shall be in arrear of payment of the surplus of their
incomes, which clause 43 orders them to pay over to the
" Corporation" for the space of. "twenty-one days next
after the same shall have become due and payable," the
" Corporation" is to recover it by sequestration. Pretty
sharp work this. We wonder whether the " Parlia-,
mentary Corporation Inquisition Committee" will dis-
cover any case where the loaves and fishes ate so closely
looked after, as is here directed for the guidance of this
new anti-monarchico-temporo-spiritual Corporation.
Clause 49 directs all monies, securities, and proper-
ties whatsoever in the hands of Trustees or Commis-
sioners of First Fruits, to be paid over to the new "Cor-
poration" for ever. So clause 50 directs that all monies
bequeathed by two humane " Archbishops of Armagh
towards buying glebes and augmenting poor livings in
Ireland," are also to be paid over to the "Corporation"
for ever. Is it quite certain that the specific trusts of
these bequests will be as faithfully administered by the
" Corporation" as by the original trustees? .
Clause 51 says that the " Corporation" are " author-
ized and empowered, from time to time, at their discre-
tion, to lay out at interest all or any part of such mo-
nies as shall at any time hereafter by or under the pro-
visions of this act come to or be in their hands, or at
their disposal, in the purchase of government or parlia-
mentary funds, stocks, or securities, and no other, either
in England or Ireland; and from time to time change,
transfer, or sell out such stocks, funds, or securities, or
any part thereof, as they may find necessary or conve-
nient." A fine opening this for stockjobbing among
some of the young " HANNIBALS."
By clause 65, a complete control of all surplus funds is
vested in the " Corporation," who are to dispose of such
surplus, or any part thereof, in such proportions as to
the said " Corporation" shall seevafit.
Clauses 74 and 75 authorize—the first, the lending of
money at any reduced rate of interest which they shall
think fit—and the second grants the same arbitrary
powers of sequestration for the recovery of it, as are
already granted with respect to other payments.
Clauses 10.5 and 105 are two of the most striking
attempts at breaking in upon the lay property- in the,
Church ; some of the preceding clauses having autho-
rized the diminution of some parishes and the increase
of others, the compensations for which, to be given and
taken, are laid down here with blanks to be filled up in
committee.
We will pass over the next clause (107), which, with
clauses 31 and 32, have been elsewhere described as
compassing the death of the hierarchy and inferior
clergy; as they unquestionably offer large bribes for
their removal, and particularly in cases of the Bishops.
When we reach clause 115, and attempt to wade
through the matter which extends from thence to 143
inclusive,—occupying 25 printed pages, and involving
every kind of legal and technical difficulty which the wit
of man can devise, and which it will take more than the
wit of man to reconcile and adjust—when we reach this
point, the pen drops from our hand in despair. We talk
not, as Lord Althorp did, when he affected surprise
that Honourable Gentlemen should not be able in 48
hours to make themselves masters of the " principle" of
the measure—not the details, but the principle. Painful
as it would be to us to be subjected to the punishment
of listening to one of his Lordship's long speeches, we
would willin(4ly bear the infliction for three hours, to
hear a difinition of principle, as applied to a measure
which seems to us to be as destitute of any honest prin-
ciple as any wholesale act of spoliation that ever
came under our notice. We should like to know which
of the sapient law advisers of the " Ministers" will
undertake the exposition of that which has no existence.
Its defence we are quite prepared for, after what those
sage lawyers, Lushington, Horne, and Campbell, lately
advanced in justification of the piratical attacks upon the
Dutch; not by Algiers or Tunis, but by England—once
:honotirable England—hitherto the firm stay and support

of her weaker but faithful allies—now, in conjunction
with the revolutionary government of France, their
shameless oppressor and plunderer. Defend the mea-
sure ! Ay, exulting—not only defend, but laud it to the
skies, as a measure of " absolute wisdom" and justice,
pure as " unsunned snow." Can that measure be
defective in wisdom—wordly wisdom we mean—be its
justice what it may, which creates the Commissioners of
this " Corporation," with its innumerable inquisitorial
Commissions, Secretaries, Treasurers, Clerks, " and
such other subordinate officers as they" (the chief
" Corporators") "'in their discretion shall think neces-
sary," with such salaries and emoluments as shall be
appointed to be paid by the said three chief " Corpo-
rators," without limitation, with the further authority to,
" defray all such incidental charges and expenses as
shall become necessary," also without limitation. Can
that measure, we again ask, lack wisdom which enables
the Greys, the Ponsonbys, and the Plunketts of the day
thus to depose the King from his high ecclesiastical
authority, and, usurping the royal power, to wield with
it the tremendous amount of patronage which they will
thereby create, for the benefit of themselves, their
families, and their parasites ?

(FROM THE TIMES.)
The dispute between the States of Wurtemburg and
the Government is advancing to a crisis. By accounts
received yesterday from Frankfort to the 12th inst., we
learn that the committee of the Second Chamber to
which the Royal rescript on the motion of the Deputy
Von PFIZER was referred, made on the 7th a report
which is by no means calculated to heal the breach
between the representative and executive authorities.
The nature of the' rescript which has given occasion to
this proceeding need not to be stated here, as it was de-
scribed in our paper of the 11th. We have now to an-
nounce that the report which was drawn up and presented
by the Deputy UHLAND vindicates the reception of Von
PFIZER'S motion by the Chamber, and also the pro-
positions that motion contains, including the declaration
on the resolutions of the Federal Diet. In conclusion it
is observed, that to maintain the independence of the
Chamber it is absolutely necessary to repel with energy
the attempted interference in its proceedings. It is
therefore proposed to return the following address in
answer to the rescript:—

"To your Royal Majesty we present most respectfully, in
consequence of a rescript, what follows :
" In the said rescript it is declared that we should, with marked
disapprobation, reject a motion respecting the resolutions of the
Federal Diet of the 28th of June, 1832. We, therefore, consi-
der it proper to explain, in the most decisive manner, that it is
the right and the duty of every member of the Chamber to speak
without reserve when the constitution is threatened, be it from
whatever quarter it may, with danger. The motion has been
entertained in the regular course of business, and we neither
permit the order of our proceedings to be disturbed, nor any
other character to be given to our decisions than that which
they require—calmness and impartiality. We, therefore, can-
not reject with disapprobation the motion in question ; and as
to the anticipated interference in the regular course of our tran-
sactions, we hold ourselves bound equally to guard the freedom
of the Chamber and the responsibility of each of its members."

The report was ordered to be taken into consideration
on the following Monday, and as the Opposition have a
very considerable majority in the Chamber, it is highly
probable that the address, as proposed by the committee,
will be adopted.
(FROM THE STANDARD)
Sir John Soane deserves all the praise of patriotic
munificence, for his splendid gift and endowment for the
public enjoyment and for the advancement of the arts;
but if we are to believe in the continued reign of the
doctrines now promulgated, and gravely acted upon, we
must seriously question Sir John's good sense.
The doctrine to which we allude is that which claims
as public property whatsoever shall have been set apart
for purposes, no matter how specific these purposes. may
be, from which it is intended that the public should derive
any benefit. This is the doctrine which would convert
the qualified and limited interest, which the public has of
right in the church property and corporation property, into
an absolute dominion.

According to this doctrine it is plain, that Sir John
Soane's gift is no more likely to promote permanently
the objects for which he designed it, than if it had "en-
dowed a college or a cat ;" or having turned the whole
into money, had remitted it to the Chancellor of the Ex-
chequer to enhance the contingent revenue of 1833.
Our ancestors loved religion and they loved liberty; they
accordingly endowed churches that the people might en-
joy the blessing of instruction in the word of Divine
truth—and they endowed corporations, that these little
oligarchical commonwealths (for such they were consti-
tuted at their foundation), being equally independent of
the great and of the rabble, might every where (to use
the words of Mr. Charles Fox) supply "permanent bo-
dies, in which the spirit of liberty might reside, and effec-
tual organs by which it might act ;" and, when the sad
necessity might arise, "fortresses to protect the friends
of their country from the vengeance of the court." A
century ago, whoever talked of church property or cor-
poration property "as public property," would have been
treated as a madman, and very justly denounced as an
apostle of sacrilege and theft; because a century ago,
though, perhaps, there was not more religion or honesty
in the country than there is now (indeed, we beleve,
there was less of both in a diffused state), public men had
not acquired the jargon of "flash philosophy," which
Mr. Burke at its introduction characterised as the "patois
of fraud." Men affected still to respect religion, and
rational liberty, and the right of property. Now, how-
ever, things have undergone a change; all power, all
right, all capacity of judgment, is absorbed by the com-
plex tyrant and voracious extortioner set above the throne
of heaven, and; of course set far above all authority of
earthly power, and all obligation of duty to man as to
God, under the title .of. "the Public."

This idol despot may for awhile tolerate Sir John
Soane's own dispoition of his own property, let the dilet-
tanti caprice expire, as it is expiring; let the greedy
avarice which, under the pretences of "economy, re-
trenchment," &c. is sanctioning every meaness, injustice,
oppression, and fraud, by putting the stamp of public
approbation upon them, gain a little more, and the splen-
did collection and endowment to which we have been al-
luding, being made " public property," will become
assets in the budget of the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

(FROM THE COURIER.)
Although it was understood in the House of Commons
on Thursday night that Mr. PEASE, the member for the
south division of the county of Durham, had consented to
withdraw his notice of a motion to insert in the Irish
Disturbances' Bill a clause empowering the Lord-
Lieutenant to establish a Bank Restriction in Ireland,
we find that (we should imagine by some inadvertence)
the notice still remains upon the Order Book.
It is rather remarkable-that the mode in which Mr.
PEASE proposed to enact the Irish Bank Restriction, in a
supplemental clause, to the Disturbances Bill, cor-
responds exactly with the plan suggested by the Dublin
Evening Post, in an article extracted in our Paper on
Thursday.
We have heard many observations on the eager and
patriotic anxiety with which Mr. SHELL begged the
Member for Durham to withdraw the motion, on account
of-the apprehensions which he, Mr. SHELL, entertained
of the alarming consequences it might produce in Ire-
land. To us, we confess, it appears that Mr. SHELL is
rather tardy with his expressions of anxiety for the tran-
quillity of Ireland. Mr. SHELL would surely have done

more wisely had he addressed his deprecatory adjuraticblil
to the Hon. Member for Dublin, when he suggested'
cautious implications to the subservient tenants one
fertile property of agitation, the proceedings, whose ar
happy results are detailed more strongly in every
seeding account which reaches us from Ireland.