The Press. — London, England, 1855-11-24 00:00:00

NOVEMBER 24, 1855. eopen a grave once closed, or in any way to disturb the ashes of the dead. For this reason the Hindoo plan of burning the body is viewed by them with particular abhorrence ; and it is this mode of disposing of the de parted, together with the worshipping of idols, which Mahomedans equally abhor, that creates between the two creeds so strong a feeling of hatred and so impassable a gulf. What then does the Madras Government do but take advantage of this feeling to order that the deal body of every Moplah who falls fighting against our troops shall be publicly and, as the Mahomedans consider, sacrilegi ously burned. The order has been carried out in the late instance, and the bodies of the murderers, or supposed murderers, of Mr. CONOLLY have been so disposed of. If the affair concerned those criminals alone, we should think the less about it, as it is not a part of our creed to show murderers pity ; but we may be sure that the matter will not rest here, as there is not a Mahomedan in India, or in Asia, who will not be aroused to the highest state of indignation against us when he hears the tale. Setting aside the barbarism of the act, and the recurrence by us to a proceeding in the nineteenth century which the better sense of our fathers has long since flung aside, it will be held by all Mahomedans to be a deliberate outrage on their religious faith. It would not be a greater insult to the whole Hebrew community throughout the world if an enactment were made that the bodies of Jewish murderers should be interred in a pigsty or thrown to the hogs. In such case, the sense of outrage to the remains would wipe out all consideration of the delinquencies of the living criminal, and direct against the Government which sanctioned it that indig nation which would otherwise have been felt against the culprit by all men, even those of his own creed. We do hope that no time will be lost by the President of the India Board in vindicating the national character from any participation in such proceedings by peremptorily ordering the discontinuance of this deliberate pollution of the remains of Mahomedan criminals at Madras. If the dread of what can be done to the living man will not deter such men from crime, neither will anything that can be done to the dead. But, even were it otherwise, such acts can only revolt their coreligionists, and brutalise the people among whom they are performed. Let those who commit murder die the death that they have merited ; but let not a nation of Christians and of Englishmen sully themselves by imitating the worst of heathen savages in the maltreatment of their enemies' remains. THE POPE, THE WAR, AND THE CONCORDAT. WHATEVER may have been the differences of opinion amongst European publicists on the progress of events in the present crisis, there was at least one point on which they have been nearly unanimous. They concurred in think ing that nothing should be done to cast a brand of religious discord amongst Powers with one common political purpose, though with different national religions. In further ante of that general sentiment, topics calcu lated to excite theological rancour have been excluded from political discussion. Their consideration at such a period was felt to be untimely, and therefore unwise. It is one of the most unpleasant aspects of the Concordat between Austria and the Court of Rome that its publication has a necessary tendency to raise questions of a polemical character ; and, possibly, some of the parties most active in bringing it about worked with an immediate view to that end. We must, therefore, take care not to fall into their trap. We shall not play their game by plunging into discussions which might sever political friendships which it is mnst desirable to culti vate and preserve Without doing so, it is in our power to comment on the progress of events ; and the extraordinary nature of the Concordat could not be excluded from the THE PRESS. consideration of the most impartial public writer. In fact, its publication has already been the means of ventilating some of those views on the state of Europe which have hitherto been confined to calm but profoundly informed observers of the great drama now played before the world. Of those views, the most remarkable is that hitherto, according to some acute thinkers, the Papacy has larg ely gained by the present war. It is to be o bserved, without any refer ence to the Concordat, that the Court of Rome has decidedly profited in a variety of ways since the commencement of the struggle. We beg the attention of our readers to some of the reflections mad on this head, which may startle some persons who look to an increase of civil and religious liberty from a " war.to the knife" with Russia. In the first place, the Greek Church is one of the most formidable opponents to the exaltation of the Roman Pontiff above the other prelates of Christendom. That idea of a " Papal Unity," fixed and permanent at Rome, which has turned some weak minds at Oxford, has never at any period been enter tained by the divines of the Greek Church. "Holy Catholic and Apostolical," it styles itself, but not " Roman." On the contrary, the presence of the Greek Church on earth, with its myriads of worshippers, and its non acceptance of the traditions of a Papacy at Rome, has always been a great resource in the controversies of Protestant divines wrest ling with the upholders of the Church of Rome. The great theocracy of Rome has been more successfully opposed by Greek Christianity than by Mahomedan influence. In the present state of affairs, to depress and to disparage the Greek Church is an evident purpose with the Court of Rome. If it can procure Protestants to supply it with ships, men, and arms, to accomplish its policy on this head, so much the better for the Vatican. That those who reason in this manner have a strong show of facts to sustain them can scarcely be denied. For example, it is indisputable that the war is more popular in Catholic than in Pro testant Christendom. Even in prostrate Spain there has been a recent aspiration to join the Allies. There seems no reason for doubting that ESFARTERO used the language attributed to him, " Spain is a Latin country, " and ought to take part in the contest." For ages it boasted of the title of " Eldest Daugh ter of the Church ;" and as a " Latin country " i.e., with the Christianity of Rome, as distinct from the Greek Church—Spain would natu rally be in its traditional course when mar shalled against the cause to which the Greek Christians are even fanatically attached. Nor on this point should it be forgotten that the great Protestant Confederation of the United States of America regards the contest with profound indifference. We are far from supposing that the absence of American sympathy with the Allies is attri butable to the Protestantism of the States ; but at least their indifference to the struggle must not be omitted in surveying the state of feelings on the contest as shown by Protestant countries. Whether Prussia has taken the right policy or not in her attitude of non intervention, it is at least certain that she is a Protestant power, and it remains to be shown that the feelings of her subjects are adverse to the conduct of the King. Still more worthy of observation is the un doubted fact that the priests of Ireland have given such active sympathy in the present contest. In most other British movements in our time the priests of Ireland have held stu diously aloof. In this instance it is most remark able how carefully they have avoided talking of " England's distress being Ireland's opportu " nity," and it deserves recollection that Car dinal WISEMAN was amongst the first to deliver a lecture on the war. We shall not here affirmatively pronounce upon the exact amount of substantial truth in these considerations. As publicists we could scarcely decline taking cognisance of the fact that such views have been mooted amongst " those " reading and thinking few " who help to form the opinion of a passing age, as they generally dictate that of posterity. Taken in connection 1111 with the fact of the Concordat, such views ar • worthy of grave reflection. For it would scem that thus far the war has had a decided tendency to increase the influ ence of the Papacy. The flux and reflux of its power has been one of the most curious laws observable in its history. During the last revolutionary war, even when apparently crushed, the Court of Rome was increasing its political power by sure and secret means. In these days, also, it would seem that the influ ence lost in the unnus mirabilis of 1848 has been amply compensated for in the struggle against Russia. If the war succeeds, and the Czar is humbled, then a great schismatic rival, which for ages has scouted the tradition of " the unity of Rome," would be depressed ; on the other hand, if the Allies were nut to succeed, the Papacy would find ample ground for content. In modern times the two great Western Powers of Europe have, for evident causes, never been favorites with the Vatican. The situation of France, with its bold, discur sive tone, has sapped and undermined Papal absolutism in quarters where Protestant reasoning could not penetrate, and whore mere infidelity could not live. It would be, indeed, a most extraordinary result if while the more clamorous portion of the Liberals pretend that the present war is for the liberties •f Europe, its actual pro gress should considerably exalt the power of the Papacy. Connected with such considerations the new Concordat of Austria assumes a most porten tous importance. It is, mutatis mutamlis, nearly as retrograde a step, in toleration, as if the British Parliament were to re-enact the odious Penal Laws passed by a Whig Ministry against the Irish Jacobites in the last century. The spiritual dominion of the Papacy is at one single blow established over thirty-five millions of people, and over the fairest portions of Central Europe. Thus, while " Liberal " writers and speakers are contradicting each other as to the solution of the question "What are we fighting for?" the commingled results of the aggrandisement of Austria and the spiritual exaltation of the Court of Rome refute the contradictory argu ments of the wrangling disputants. The Liberal cant of " progress " is exposed in its superficiality by the positive results before us. The Court of Rome is ardent for the war. The Teutonic races on the Continent, the Northern Powers, the Anglo-Saxon community of the United States, are all apathetic, while Rome triumphs in her Concordat with Austria, and exults in seeing Protestant England helping to depress her great and hated rival, the Greek Christian Church. THE WAR IN ASIA MINOR. If the reader will glance at some one of those various maps, the publication of which is at all events one good effect of the present war, he will see that the boundaries of the Russian empire are unusually distinct and broad. Sweden on the extreme north-west, then Prussia and then Austria, bring us down in one continuous line to the confines of the Turkish dominions; while from Chocsin right across to the Caspian Sea one unbroken natural frontier is presented by the Pruth, the Euxine, and the Caucasus. South of the latter lie the fertile plains and magnificent forests of Mingrelia and Georgia, and it is but quite recently that Russia has succeeded in overleaping the mountain wall, and establishing herself in what is now called Russian Transcaucasia. The importance attaching to the possession of these provinces it is impossible to over-esti mate. Wallachia and Moldavia are indeed nearer to Constantinople, yet it is a question whether their occupation be in reality more menacing either to Turkey or to the rest of Europe. Along the south coast of the Euxine the Russians may advance by slow but sure degrees. The country is open before them, and the public is far less aware of the danger. Under these circumstances the truly brilliant victories recently gained by our Allies become the subject of twofold congratulation. That the Turks should have fought as they lubve IM