The Press. — London, England, 1853-06-11 00:00:00

iSB provided against Popish encroachment. But it is strange how rarely have even the most violent opponents of " Popery " set forth the true relation in which the Roman .Cathohe Church of necessity stands to the rival power, and, till this relation is fully and generally understood. no advance van be made towards establishing harmony lietween it Himont Catholic population and a Protestant Govern ment. The advocates of " Emancipation " were wont to argue that if what they considered reason able terms, that is to say. the equality of civil rights for which they pleaded, were granted, the Romish Church might lie believed in her protestations Of eternal gratitude and content ment for the future. To this their opponents variously replied that she never would be con tent, some said till she shared, others till she engrossed, the endowments and ileges of the Established Church; but all assumed that there is some point, which if attained, her ambition would be gorged, and priestly agitation would cease. Now here lies the fundamental error which vitiates all our reasonings on the subjeet. for the sake of argument, we can bring our• selves to suppose that in this country the Church of Ro u te were dominant—sole—armed with the sword of perseention, and basking in the favour of a Popish dynasty, there would then commence the struggle between the civil and the eeelesiastical power which the preten sions of Rome make inevitable. The relation of the Romish Church to the State is one of antagonism ; her ladles is ceaseless aggression and encroachment. I t was only by a es impnimise, the result of a struggle enduring for eenturies, that in each European state the in dependent action of the civil power was at last secured. Even in Spain, where the alli ance between despotism and bigotry was so rinse. and their mutual intelligence seemed so perfeet, there were constant biekerings and quarrels—Papal nunciiis withdrawn from Madrid, grandee ambassadors pouting at Rome ; and in the last century these moae tinet went so far as to cause the expulsion of the Jesuits. • But it in the most bigoted state of Europe, where the Crown mid the Tiara found their interest in a eommon league for the oppression of the people, it was neeessary to set up barriers against priestly domination, how is it possible that in a Protes tant state the Romish Church can lie allowed to exercise an unlimited power of aggression which it now alums as a social right, under the name of expansion and development ? It is •nootiftstia isspossibie. The safeguards against Papal and priestly encroachment which are needed ill it Ituuuul Ciltholle Coun try c,uulut, ri fiirtiori, be dispensed with in it Protestant one. These may be established either by coercive laws, or by the terms of a mutual compact ; but, by the consent or without the consent of the Roman Catholic body, the Pro testant government and constitution must be protected in the exercise of its sovereignty against the pretensions and interference of Rome. It is obvious how this principle applies to the present attitude of the Runtish Church in these countries ; but to follow it to its conse quences would curry us too far at present ; amid indeed the present moment is lint favour. able for the discussion. The Protestant pub lic is not yet prepared to adopt either of the alternatives, one of which we consider ulti mittelv inevitable. The Romish priesthood tind the present state of unopposed hostility— the warfare of Juvenal. " rnissis egf• rofrulu"—too pleasant and profitable to desire its speedy termination. And vet, says the Seidel► proverb. when the night is darkest, dawn is the nearest. An overdose of poison sometimes nets its its owu antidote. The vast inerease of power which Rome has reeently obtained. and the lofty tone which she has assumed throughout Chris tendom, must shortly produee a reaction. In Ireland, our author tells us,—and in this he opneurs with many other witnesses,--that th e arrogance and ingratitude of the priesthood have disgusted t heir most influential sup porters. Till the Relief Act was passed the interests of both elerg,y and laity seemed identical, and for some years after O'Connell's THE PRESS. triumph their alliance promoted the ambitious views of each. But the moment of victory is often fatal to the union of the victors. The priests began to feel that in many particulars which are ably explained by our author their interests were at variance with those of the landlords. The toil was all theirs—they would not share the prize. They could now command, 11114 WOlll4l no longer obey; they dismissed with contumely their old, unmanageable patrol's, to make way for their new, subservient clients. We sympathise with the indignation which our author expresses at the outrages and insults with which the priests and their mobs at the lute elee• Lions in Ireland drove from the hustings the most respectable of the old advocates for Catholic claims—men who imagined that they had earned immortal gratitude front their ('hureh—and that in building up her greatness they were raising a pedestal to their own am. bition. But we cannot regret that they have received this lesson, and we hope it will not be lost on their coreligionists in this country. If the Roman Catholic layman will not be taught by history, he must leant by his own experience that to toil for the exaltation of the priesthood is to forge his own fetters; that he needs the protection of the state and of its law —be the state Romeo) Catholic or Protestant — to save him front the encroachments of his own clergy ; and that if he takes their part against the state and the law he will be rewarded by the seduction of his relations into convents twat the spoliation of his inheritance. But, besides this general diversity of interest, other causes there are which bring the Irish proptietor into immediate collision with his priest. Our author explains this (p.. 18) : The chief source of income of the Litwin Catholic priests in 'rebind is derived front what may lie ealled capitation or poll tax. The more usual name for it is house-money. At Christians and at Easter certain dues are payable, in proport . to the number of each family. To these dues we must add the larger and more easily en forced fees on marriages, christenings, chineltings, masses at funerals, and prayers tnr the dead. It cousetinently fllows, that the priests' income vauies directly as the ttttt ober of his thwk. Nor lit it he supposed that only the •lt wealthy putt of the flock is tueaut—no Otte is too 11001* to pay the priest. Of my own knowledge I may assert, the priest finds out the alms that paupers have reeeiVed, aunt MOO from them enforces payment of his tines. His direct interest then is, that the population should be inereastsl ; and his natural bias is to encourage every part of the reckless system by which population has been multiplitsl and Ireland has lwen 'initialised. To this the true interests of the landlotsl have always been opposild. All true friends of Ireland have raised their vlowes, but hitherto in vain, against the wasteful sub letting of land, and other abuses which encourage early maniages, so prolific of income to the priest, but of beggary to the nation. lint now, since the recent introduetion of the poor law into Ireland, what was befOre n oath r of window has be emote a matter of necessity. The landowner must resist the present systent, or else be swept away with it. The hostility which the priest professes to him is not the mere expression of intolerance (grossly intolerant as is the limgolige now so ovovrally employed), it is Hot. St tpleStio/1 Of lease " to breathe the fresh breezes of the Atlantic," as Father Cahill puts it ; the trite question is, who shall tually possess tlw broad acres of Ireland; it has now lwetane between the priest and the landlord a question of existence. The RuHilish clergy are increased since 1831 front 1,711 U to 3,000, including monastic estah lishments (p. 51), while the population which is to support them is greatly diminished. Truly the violence which our author describes is quite intelligible, if it, be not excusable. The subject of Maynooth he treats inci dentally and slightly ; but the hint which he throws out for the solution of the difficulty in which our future legislation with respect to it is involved deserves consideration (p. 71). and we are desirous not to lose an opportunity of giving it circulation. The recent vote of the House of Commons refusing a trifling sum for repahing the buildings of an institution to which it had already voted so large an annual grant argues at degree of ill-humour in the public mind which makes some change, and at no distant period, inevitable. And admit ting as we must the difficulty of withdrawing the grant. and the inconvenience of continuing it on the present terms. we gladly encourage the dismission of any middle course that seems to lead to a solution of the problem. Most of our readers :ire fainiliar with the general outline Ilf the circumstaanc•es attend ing the foundation of Mayuouth College. SATURtAY, In the year 1794, when the French revolu tion had closed the colleges where the greater part of the Irish priesthood received their education, and had confiscated their endow ments, a wish was loudly expressed for the establishment of an Irish national college. The Irish Liberals of the day were the chief promoters of this scheme, by which they doubtless intended to advance their own poli tiesl objects, and in the management of the proposed foundation they desired only partially to include the clera. The hierarchs of the day took the alarm. They at once deserted their lay allies, by whom they were loudly accused of treachery, and they represented to Govern ment the meonveuience of bringing up the clergy by French republicans on the one hand, or by Irish republicans and repealers on the other. In their formal memorial to the Lord Ileutenamt they promised, us usual, eternal gratitude and loyalty, and proposed regulations by which the control of the Sovereign over the future place of education seemed satisfactorily secured. Mr. Pitt and his Cabinet, "good easy souls," imagined that they were a match for the priests ; they fell into the trap. The over tures were atecepted—Maynooth was founded ; and, moreover, what had not even been asked was endowed. Whether 1)r. Hussey, the first president, and the other leaders of the clergy, distinctly foresaw and intended what has since occurred is immaterial. It is clear that throughout the whole transaction reciprocal advantages were promised ; on the one hand, the Crown gave protection and support ; on the other it was to exercise control and to receive obedience ; and it is equally clear that the present working of the system at Maynooth is entirely at valiance with its original intention. The exclusive right of the bishops to nominate students ; the care with which they confine their selection to the poorest and the humblest, who have no ties or connections but those which bind them to the Church ; their su preme control over the discipline and mode of education, have effectually counterbalanced the appointment of laymen and even Protestants (among whom is the Irish Chancellor, ex qfieio) as co-trustees. The method by which our author proposes to restore Maynooth to the uses which were contemplated by its founders is to open it to the Roman Catholic body at large. He does not give us even the outline of his scheme, which he admits is " more easily enunciated than executed" (p. 72) ; but we pre sume that to open some of the studentships to competition—to bestow some us endowments of schools, or to share them with Roman Catholic benefactors—to admit the laity to a certain effective participation in the management of the college, or at least the appointment of its officers—to admit, exclusively of the founds limn, students who arc able to maintain them selves and pay for their education—would form parts of his phut. We look forward to the time when the Roman Catholic body, disgusted with the selfish violence of the priests, and the tyranny which already has been exercised upon themselves, will be willing to co-operate with a Protestant Government in fixing those barriers which under no circumstances the Romish priesthood eau be allowed to pass. And in the meantime we think that a Royal commission might be able to suggest such reforms in this place of education as might be acceptable to the rea sonable and well-disposed of the Catholic body, and might reconcile good Protestants to the support of a Romanist college. All our projects of improvement, however, must be kept subordinate and dependent on the mighty change which is going on within Ireland herself. Already the numerical majority of the Romanists d iminished to a mere equality, while the laud in possession of the Protestant proprietors exceeds nineteen-twentieths of the whole acreage of the country. Our author bears testimony to the sincerity and extent of those conversions the first reports of which the public so wisely received with sceptical caution. The most unimpeachable witnesses attest that at this time, for the most part, the priest's empire in Ireland is one of fear. His selfish conduct during the famine, his tyranny and his violence, have alienated the affections of the peasantry ; and when their minds are relieved from the superstitious dread of his preternatural powers, or the number of the