The Press.
London, England, 1858-01-30 00:00:00

THE PRESS, JANUARY 30, 1858.

fectly natural. Nothing could have surpassed
our own when we first became aware of the
purpose which it is now our intention to com-
municate. Of all the ill-advised exertions of
the Royal prerogative since her Majesty's
family have sat on the Throne of these
realms, we do not hesitate to say that the pro-
posed creation of seven Whig Peers at the
present crisis is the least excusable on the
grounds either of public policy or private
merit.

The precedents for this aggression on the
Upper House are the creation of some dozen new
Peers by the Government of Queen ANNE to
carry through the Peace of Utrecht, and the
threatened creation of Peers to carry the last
Reform Bill. Each of these cases is removed
from the present by a very long interval
indeed. In 1713 the object for the sake of
which this extreme measure was adopted was
universally popular. There was no question
about it. The people were tired of the war,
and the war was tired of them. It could do no
more for them than was already done. These
points are admitted both by Lord MACAULAY
and Mr. THACKERAY, whose bias is not towards
the party by whom that peace was effected.
There was a strong party of dissentients in
the Upper House alone ; and of these at least
two•thirds were actuated either by personal or
by party motives. Some were friends of the
Duke of MARLBOROUGH, others were friends of
the Elector of HANOVER ; and the English
nation just then, as both the above quoted
authorities allow, was inclined to neither.
Under these circumstances the measure
recommended by the Ministry, though not
justifiable, is certainly to be palliated.
In 1832 the position of affairs was exactly
analogous. There was a strong feeling
throughout the country in favour of the Re-
form Bill, and a strong opposition to it in the
House of Lords. That opposition was, to say
the least of it, just as patriotic as the opposi-
tion to the Peace of Utrecht. One was for
the sake of defending our old Constitution,
the other for the sake of introducing a fresh
dynasty. A party was to profit and a party was
to suffer by each. Let us say no more than
that the one was as respectable as the other.
Here again, then, the Minister having indis-
putably the country and the House of Com-
mons at his back, though not, we repeat, justi-
fied, was to some extent excusable in recom-
mending such a step to his Sovereign.
But in the present case not one of these
conditions exists. The opposition to the Pre-
mier's policy in the House of Lords is very
generally shared in by the country, and it yet
remains to be seen if the Commons will not
endorse it. The questions now under the
consideration of the Legislature have not yet
received the verdict of public opinion. They
are not measures loudly and universally de-
manded by the majority of the nation, and
waiting the tardy assent of a reluctant cli-
garchy. They concern points on which public
opinion is really very evenly balanced, and to
make any addition of party advocates to the
House of Lords under such circumstances is
to swamp free discussion, and to coerce legiti-
mate opinion.
It is perfectly obvious that this measure is
felt necessary by the Premier to insure his
personal ascendancy. Has it come to this,
that the working of the Constitution is to be
checked for the convenience of one man? If
so, then, indeed, let us fold our arms and
await our destiny. But we cannot believe that
so glaring a violation of right should be per-
petrated without so strong a remonstrance
from the people's representatives as would cost
the Premier his throne.

Still less do we believe the injurious
rumour of a disgraceful compact by which the
permission so to act has been purchased.
It is incredible that any transaction so
outrageous to English feeling should have
been ventured on by those to whom it is attri-
buted But, however this may be, we trust an
unmistakeable protest will be offered by the
nation at large, in time to prevent so unjusti-
fiable an invasion of the Constitution from
being consummated.

THE PAPAL PARTY ABROAD AND IN

IRELAND.
WE have read with much interest the remark-
able circular which Count CAVOUR has
addressed to the Intendants of Sardinia, on

his taking charge of the Ministerial portfolio
vacated by Signor RATAZZI. The views enun-
ciated on the question of priestly power are
specially worthy of notice. " The Govern-
" ment," says Count CAVOUR, " is attached to
" the religion of the State ; it respects her
" Ministers, but it maintains the independence
" of the civil power and liberty of conscience ;
" it repels all intervention of the priestly order
" in what relates to political and civil institu-
" tions ;" and the entire document is drawn
up in that bold tone. It has no political reti-
cence, no Jesuit's logic, no sinister State craft.
Its argument is intelligible, and its language is
without ambiguity. It is a State paper of
" Liberal Romanists " in office ; and its perusal
excites many reflections, when we remember
that certain priests in Ireland are now by
Parliamentary orders placed upon their trial
for (alleged) offences at the last general
election. _ _ _ _

But our experience of the arts and wiles of
the Court of Rome, and our knowledge of its

formidable system, make us feel that we must
not be too sanguine in accepting the cause of
religious freedom as being finally victorious
even in Piedmont. There are many deep
thinkers who believe that constitutional
liberty, the right of free assembly and discus-
sion, and the perfect freedom of the press, can
exist with permanence only in Protestant
countries. " Liberal Romanists," certainly,
have vast difficulties to contend against in re-
sisting the ascendancy of clerical power. The
priests have a system organised and secret ;
they have corporate power, and many facilities
for private influence. Above all, they have the
Confessional, and they have boundless re-
sources in the weakness and domestic affec-
tions of women. In Roman Catholic coun-
tries woman exercises a religious power that
it is difficult for Protestants to conceive. The
graces of the sex, the finest instincts of the
female heart, and the winning ways of the
mother and the wife are all employed, directly
or indirectly, to mould and rule the habits of
male members of a family. It is against these
influences that the Piedmontese will have to
contend, and we sincerely trust that they may
be successfuL
We could wish that there was some Celtic
Cavour in Ireland to speak thrilling words to
the Roman Catholics of Ireland, and remind
them of the promises made when " Catholic
Emancipation " was conceded in 1829. We
have no desire to disinter the painful recollec-
tions of the last twenty years in Ireland, but
it is impossible to be blind to the fact that the
policy of the Roman Catholics in Ireland has
been entirely altered. Roman Catholic barris-
ters easily find constituencies, while obstacles
aro thrown in the way even of " Liberal Pro-
testants." The Irish Judicature is fast passing
into the hands of the Roman Catholics, and
they are seeking also to establish a complete
ascendancy in the " National Education "
system. The more that is conceded to them,
the more aggressive do they become. As soon
as one "grievance" is redressed, twenty others
are brought forward, and they affect a con-
venient forgetfulness of the manner in which
they disturbed the realm for many years.
They retarded the prosperity of Ireland by
the Repeal delusion, which was fostered and
countenanced by the great mass of the
Roman Catholic clergy, and they lowered the
character of the Irish representation by intro-
ducing a swarm of petty adventurers into the
House of Commons, who won no name in the
Senate, and whose whole ambition was to
secure places for themselves and their allies.
Yet, in spite of these things, the Ultramon-
tanist party in Ireland arrogantly demand
that they are to obtain as large a portion of
the official patronage and of the public re-
wards as if they had never disturbed the
ctountry with " Repeal," or sought to aid Car-
dinal VfnutmaN in his aggression.

It is impossible, on this point, to forget the
words that fell from the Earl of DERBY in
1853 with reference to the conduct of the
Roman Catholic priests at the election of
1852. Lord DERBY alluded in the House of
Lords to the extravagant acts of clerical as-
cendancy committed in that year ; and his
Lordship stated, just as Count CAVOUR might
be supposed to have done, the absolute ne-
cessity that the State should vindicate its
constitutional privileges. Our readers must
recollect that the Conservative Cabinet was
overthrown mainly by the votes of that " Brass
Band" which obtained its powerichiefly by the
identical malpractices against which Count
CAVOUR has emphatically protested. The
contrast, therefore, between the _ " Liberal

Romanists" in Piedmont and the Ultra.
montanists in Ireland deserves the particular
regard of all who study the progress of the
Church of Rome and the vicissitudes of her
fortunes.
Is it yet too late to hope that a moderate
party may be found amongst the Irish Roman
Catholics ? It is plain that if matters are
allowed to go on in that country as they have
been for the last few years, the Protestants
of Ireland will be deprived of their legitimate
position ; and that it will be only a question
of time when an open attempt will be made to
bring about a complete religious revolution,
attended with equal perils to the political
freedom of Ireland and to the Protestantism
of England.