The Express.
London, England, 1865-03-06 00:00:00

JOHN BROGDZNI3 IXOSLLENTE BIJOU-
'ULM 0011ZAIITI Noma& ancuux FARRIVE.
& her, bees boomed with Tiret•dam Medal at the Parts
Universal soceoposied by the above tattering
of to t ter
he rebate en laepootiesbh
trairiltiLD "WitelYnd i
enteadve einortasent of IIIIFILLIRT, all
node so the greiniese.—JOHN MOODZN. Goldsmith. Mann-
hickey, No. it, lisertsitireintet. Ceresteganlen. W.C. Este-
iggibee 1791 Anon made or Chains sad Jewellery foe la.
each. N.B. This setablithsestit inclosed at 6in the events& sad
iligarisys ail armies&

RIKIKKEIZR 1 we wait Supper for you after
the Nalouttom at WAIN. rail oot.

EKe ervreogs.

TO 001tICIEIPONDPINTS.
Avert Laments Intended for TM lams" Loudon Emilie
=muss be at the Oboe, 10, kayo:le-street, by Two
if ea the day of publication.

HAYIII.IIIII.
TED Ammo. THUD WERE/ Anis MAII3.IAON.
DAVID GARRICIL—LORD DUNDIZABII DANA= AND
DON/ 1011. N 1 Whirrs, held. sad Buclutoss :
eilowdon.—AAA 111111011111111111111011111. Mt. Compd.&

MI MON&
TED EvsO, IIZAZT4TILINGS AND PIDDLE-STRING&
—Airl TM SUMMON LONDON. Yom. Vlais& J. W. My,
mbar. D. Nam,. 7. Sebes. lorresier, wad a. 11•Uos ;
Y Ifonloo. Mims Dam* sad awns*.

LYCEUM.
Tnts avows, SIM:PEON AND CO Mr. Emery and Mtn
rworthy.Tll ROADSIDE INN. Mama Yachter, Roraima
Widdieocab. OW*l4 Raymond Mtal Elawertlay...
AM TWO INFMUNING. Morn. Widdlcamb and Dairy.

SZITAIINta
ruts lemMle. TIMMY STRAWS. And LIME BUST
EQ ; el. the Old tato of Thmadrieedleattest. Mesdames
B. Mlles and Father Jambs : Mr. G. Bliprood. Firsarate
Pentosalmlots —Common°, at balt-pest G.

HIGH WATIZ AT LONDON-BRIDGE.
TIN DAY llorehtg, Ilk Wm Afternoon, Oh. 21m.
11041.M0W Mamba M. 4 Aftornoon, 100. 475.

LONDON, MONDAY, MARCH 6.

Me. WHALLILY uttered an unconscious truth, as
well as an unintentional compliment, when he

reminded the House of Commons that his Proteis-
teatime was of a wholly diflerent order from that

- .
of Mr. NIWDZOATZ. It is not only in point of
taste or manner that the distinction in question
consists. Mere surface contrasts of this kind
there are of course in plenty, and it was hardly

necessary for anyone gifted with such uncommon
powers of making fanaticism ridiculous to disclaim
being identified with a speaker in whose person it
is always respectable. But the principles from
which they start are as opposite as the methods
which they adopt in advocating them. If Mr.
NEWDIOATeII father had been endowed with pro-

pheo foresight, he might have exclaimed with the
unhappy parent of PISINTRATIIS CAxTON—" I am
"the father of an anachronism I" Mr. NIWDE-

GATE'S position is unimpeachable if you do but
concede his premixes, and the one thing he
can never be brought to see is that in England
such a concession is absolutely a thing of tae put.

He speaks in all respects as he might have spoken
in the reign of HINAY VIII. la his eyes we are
still not only a Protestant nation—not only a

community a majority of whose members profess
opinions differing from those of the Roman Catholic
Church—but a Protestant State, a community

claiming to determine by its own authority upon
the truth or falsehood of theological dogmas, and

to carry out by its Executive the decrees which it
has pronounced by its Legislature. It is true
that the fine gold has become dim, and that Jews
and Papists sit in that very Parliament which once
vouchsafed them only bitter hostility or con-
temptuous toleration; but Mr. NEWDEGATE'S
theory has not been influenced by other people's
practice, and he speaks as though the dream of
HOOlia were • present reality, and the Church
and State of England only different names for one
and the same body.
Mr. WuALLEY'S Protestantism, on the other
hand, is of • far more modern stamp. He osten-
tatiously adopts all the popular formulas with
respect to freedom of conscience, and shows his
sense of the importance of the doctrine by suffer-
ing no one to profit by it but himself. He is con-
stantly bringing forward some fresh proposal with
the view of checking the growth of the Roman
Catholic religion, but he prefaces them all by the
invitation, " Come and see my zeal for civil and
"religious liberty." That such a principle can
possibly have any application except to his own
friends never seems to enter into his head. In
fact, for him the very term has changed its mean-
ing, and it now stands, not for the right of every man
to hold his own opinion, but for the right of every
man to hold Mr. Wilaurv's ; and consequently if
any one should still be prejudiced enough to wish to
think for himself, he has only shown that he is un-
worthy of the privilege by declining to comply with
its conditions. Politicians of this school may not
follow Mr. NEWDZOATE in asserting the right of
the State to teach certain truths, but they are
willing to concur with him in claiming for it the
right to condemn certain errors ; not perhaps errors
in their own nature, but because they are arbitrarily
assumed to be inconsistent with somebody else's
rights. They draw no distinction between the
self -imposed obligations of conscience and the
obligations which are imposed by the action of
some external power ; and therefore they hold that

the State is bound, not only to prevent the inmate
of a convent from being detained there after she
has ceased to regard her vow as binding, but also
to interfere to remove her whenever she may repent
of having taken it. It would be underrating the
capacity for mischief which the disciples of these
views poeseasto test it by the reception which their
mouthpiece meets from the House of Commons.

The disabilities under which Roman Catholics
still labour are social rather than political, and to
appreciate them at their true value we must watch
the proceedings of the guardians of • London
workhouse or attend a meeting of the Middlesex
magistrates.
It is hardly necessary to remind our readers
that the cause of Protestantism is wholly uncon-
nected with the theories of either of these gentlemen.
It is not in the Parliamentary arena that religions
victories are won, or religious defeats suffered.
The theory of Church and State which floats be-
fore the eyes of Mr. Newnrzerz had a real mean-
ing in the days when Eogliahmen were of one
religion ; it had a conventional meaning in the
days when it was assumed that they were
so. But from the time when a particular religions
belief was no longer a condition of citizenship it
ceased to have any meaning at all. To argue
from what took place under HENRY VIII. or
ELIZABETH, when Roman Catholicism was accounted
a crime, or from what is done in foreign countries
now, in which Roman Catholicism is still the
established religion, is to introduos analogies which
are useless except to mislead. But if we have
little sympathy with Mr. NEWDEGATE, we certainly
have less with Mr. WHALLEY. The former is at
least consistent—he makes no pretence of being a
Liberal, and consequently he brings no disgrace
upon the principles he ommoientionsly protegees.
In this respect Mr. Wilezzgr present's most unfa-
vourable contrast. He ostentatiously avows himself
an advocate of freedom of conscience while he drags
his alleged principle' through the mud by carefully
denying to his opponents what he is constantly
invoking for his friends. In view of this un-
seemly spectacle there is nothing left for the real
friends of religious liberty—or, as we prefer to
call it, religious equality—but to ron the risk