The Express.
London, England, 1847-04-20 00:00:00

established method of

with the Vati-

------- _ _
can would be most obviously. and generally useful.
We are far from believing in an approaching mil-
lennium of universal friendship among sects, in which
the lion of popery will lie down with the lamb of
protestantiren. We have not the smallest expectation
that our heretical government will be regarded by the
Holy See with any such favour as to induce it to neg-
lect the interests of its own faith, or to abstain from
encouraging proselytism where it may be practicable.
Protestantism must take care of itsk,lf, as it has done
hitherto, by its natural detences of common
sense and dislike to priestcraft. Popery will
conquer it if it can, but notwithstanding the
which its partisans boast and its enemies
trogmern'sts,we are perfectly satisfied that on England it
will never make a material impression. As pro-
testant', we are perfectly willing to defy it, and at
least have not the smallest hope of conciliating it. As
politicians, we would recognise it as an existing fact,
and deal with it as well as circumstances will allow.

It is not the relation of popery to proteetantiam,
but that of the eatholies and their spiritual head to
the state, which we wish to improve. We may repeat
and swear as often as we please in the words of the
oath of supremacy, that the Pope " neither has nor
ought to have any power, authority, or dominion I
within these realms." Unluckily, the fact remains
that whe'hcr he ought to have it or not, he has a
certain influence which is in no way likely to be di-
minished or neutralised by iguoring its existence. At
present we preclude ourselves from coming to an
understanding as to the mode of exercising it which
may be least obnoxious to us; and as far as diplo-
, motic incivilities can have such a tendency, wo pro-
voke the hostile use of it. . . .

After all, it is not so much for the sake of the direct
advantages which we might derive from a diplomatic
intercourse with the court of Rome, great as we
have snown that they might be, as from a wish
to relieve ourselves from a position of national
absurdity, that we advocate this easy and
very natural step. The state has long ceased
to profess itself exclusively Anglican. Dissenters
and Roman catholics have, or ought to have, a full
share of the national sovereignty. If religions liberty
means anything, it means that all religions shall be
lett to protect themselves against the encroachments
of each other without the assistance or interference of
the matte. The catholic shall be free to convert,
and the protestant to reuse to be converted.
The great majority of the English people abhor
popery, and will always do so. The great majority
of the Irish rather more strenuausly, because
more ignorantly, abhor protestantism. The govern-
ment and the legislature are bound to resist the sec-
tarian influence of either religion on secular affairs;
but they are also bound in prudence to deal with
it, to watch it, and to control it. They are
as fully entitled in the performance of this duty to
secure the co-operation of even Rome itself whenever
it can be obtained, as to communicate with the recog-
nised authorities of any sect, established or dissent-
ing. on mutters affecting the interests of those religious
bodies.
It is not, indeed, to statesmen, or even to members
of parliament, that such arguments as these need be
addressed. They are not deluded by obsolete preju-
dices against communicating with Rome; they do not
believe that if the Curia meditated a plot against
England, it would act through an ostensible minister,
or by way of diplomatic communications. Their
fault is, in this and other cases, too often
to defer to the prejudices of the uninformed,
and to confirm them by an affectation of sharing
them. There is no insult which an educated people
ought to resent more strongly than an attempt to treat
them as children by encouraging their mistakes.
The best compliment a leader can pay to his follow-
ers is to warn them of errors from which he is him-
self, from position, exempt. The no-popery cry,
which seems rising in too many quarters, is often the
sincere expression of honest prejudice ; but let con-
stituencies and the country beware of those in high
station who encourage it by support or passiveness.
They will find that such leaders, if not indifferent
protestants, at least despise the people more than they
hate the Pope.

WE are threatened with a new war—the parish
against the public. The combatants seem at first un-
equally matched. But if the public be the lustier,
the parish is the most noisy. Pomposity and private
interest have a great stronghold in parochial boards.
Vested right has more than an etymological connexion
with vestries. Let the public look to it, or the parish
will be too strong for them. The Marylehone meet-
ing is a fair type of the opposition Lord 31ORPETII'S
measure is hkely to meet with. In honesty and in-
telligence it gives probably a very favourable ed-
men of parishocracy. Yet, it would be difficult to
seam more ignorance, prejudice, and deliberate mis;
representation into the proceedings of any assemblage
than are shown by the report of that meeting. To be
Mme, it numbered Sir PETER LAURIE among its
eadisis, and his rowers, in all three particulars, are
, Ihrelpiliellfle. To read the speeches of Mr. OAttriErr,
seri "Mr. DANIELL, and Sir PETER LAURIE, one
. Willa suppose that this measure contemplated
tbs. utter upsetting of all local officers end the
iiiisinistration of parochial affairs by a set of
persons appointed in Downing-street.
The mousse appears to Mr. GARNETT oto
' insinuate, that the parish is incapable of managing its
`own affairs." Sir PETER sees in it "an attempt to
deprive the rate-payers of their privileges, and to
reduce them to the condition of hewers of wood and
drawers of water." This is sheer nonsense. But
it is worth while to meet the objection that the
bill destroys self-government. In the first place,
' what are the results of the present system?
The answer is to be found in the state of
things round about us. Over the place of pariah
legislation, as over WREN, in St. Paul's, might be
written, "di ononumentom queeres, circumapicc." If
swishes had shown their ability to deal with parish
wanta, to provide for the cleanliness of streets, the
Supply of water, the drainage of houses—if their inca-
pacity were not manifested by the annual rates of pre-
ventible mortality, and the pressure of parish assess-
ments, they might have some excuse for insisting on
undisturbed possession of their powers.
But what is the rule of parochial administration P
'ls it, " Do as you would be done by ?" or, " Stick to
me and I'll stack to you?" Where are jobs so readily
introduced, and so steadily packed, as before the
vestry—whither is the ratepayer's complaint so slow
ito find its way ? Where is the advice of science, and
'the prayer of humanity, so likely to be met with
ridicule or coldness ?
True, the ratepayers elect the vestry, and in this
sense government by vestries is a...1f-government.
1 But does the act take away this power of electing
their representatives from the ratepayers P Is it true,
as asserted by Sir PrrEn LAURIE, that " the act re-
fused to grant to the metropolis even the 601. assess-
ment which was required for the commissioner
of a sanitary board in a county town
under this new bill ; but placed the whole
management of the metropolis in the hands of paid
commissioners ?", On the contrary, the 19th section
' provides that the act shall be earned out by unpaid
town commissioners, possessed of real or personal
estate to the value of 3,0001., or assessed to the poor on
not less than 501. annually ; one-third to be appointed
by the Queen, and two thirds to be chosen by the mea-
-1
1 payers. So much for the trustworthiness of the
Marylebone statements. As property will be thus
represented by the ratepayers' commissioners, the
interests of the poor and unrepresented part of the
population might run the risk of being neglected, but
for the provision which places the election of one-
third of the district board beyond the chances of
mere local influence or caprice. This third will be
composed, probably, of men averse to the solicitation
of a canvass, or of scientific and professional persons.
whose pursuits and occupations will not allow them,
however-willing, to ask the !azure of their fellow-
ratepayers, bat who will beneighboursof all,and repea-
-1 sentatives, ins peculiardegre!,of the poor and friendless.
Besides, these elected commissioners will have under
tbeixeontrol Abs sewerage, which at present, as Sir
Puss LauRIE himself complains, iemanaged by irre-
sgoosibleamsaiioners, not elected by the ratepayers.
Again, the saeseare will give to the ratepayer con-
', OA over lies water Companies, whidh they do not
now possess It is true that these commissioners
will not be permitted to execute works without plans
being first prepared by their surveyors and approved
,11 b the general board of health and public works.
at is this any infringement of the liberties of the
parishes? The proviso merely affords a much I
wanted security that the ratepayers' money will not
be wasted and misapplied, as it has been so shame- .
fully by the Westminster comuf,sioners of sewers.
if self government in parochial matters to ;eras