The Express.
London, England, 1851-02-04 00:00:00

rival religionist, actuated in Modred' of Instanixe by
downright hostility to thiscoentry.
Litigation during recent years has advanced more
and more to interfere with and limit the power
and Wheelies of one set of men over another.
Nlanufecturers who have actioired money power
over multitudes of operatives bolting to them for
their daily brad, are forbidden to take advantage
of the influence and power thus held, as regards the
extent of work of the men, and mere especially as re-
gards the well-being of the women and the education
of the children. The manufacturer is r.ut allowed to
make use of his money power to the detriment of
those be can commend.
We have no doubt that the same maxim and
the same policy will b 3 one day applied to
the landed gentry • and that they will not be
allowed to employ labourers whom they will not
house, end either to depopulate the lard or deny the
rights of honourable subsis.ence and moral edocation
to a proportionate number of peasantry. Reformers
cry oat, and with iustice, for another kind of interfe-
rence. They would prevent the landlord from driving
his tenants to the hustings and compelling them
to give a political vote according to the squired
pleasure.
All these interferences are allowed, because, fersootb,
it dots cot interfere with religious creed or cow
science. Bat why should the religious oonsciecco be
free, if the moral and political conscience is to be
coerced ? The establishment of an episcopate in
England appointed by the Pepe of Roma—that epis-
copate having the power of meeting in synod and
111113ir gilt crees—a power dewed even t i the established
ch.:rat—that episcopate itseif at the mercy of the
Poem or of his legate, and pikes in every parish
equally at the mercy of the biehop and the legate—
this immense biersechy, ramifying trim great to
smell, obeying a canon law, not only distinct
from, bat diametrically opposed to, English low—
this episcopate, this synod, and this clergy, claiming
to regulate and to hvbid such things as marriages,
as education, and enabled to enjoin principles of
social life, of p .li,ical tendency, of alliance or
aversion—this immense power can never, we fear,
be ignored for any length of time. It is totally unlike
any power or organisation obtained by ary other
creed or sect. And there exists no government in the
world that have not considered it indispensable to
limit it, and take precautions against it.
That the United States have taken considerable
precaution in the matter of education, and of property,
might be fulls shown. The precautions of all countries
are less for the purpose of persecution than for that
of deterring the Romanist or papal clergy from
dariog too much, or care yiog cut those extravagant
and arrogant pretension., which they never wholly
disavow. Now this deterrent principle lodged in ate
state by ti e laws of Belgium or Prussia, is in
America not indeed to be found eo much in the
law as is the people. The emissaries of Rome are
wise in their generation, and will not dare more than
what is sate to dare. But, in this country, where
there is truly nothing to fear from the people, and
where government has no tern re, the envoys of
Rome a ill dare their utmost, and if the et..te or
society be unable to cheek them, they will produce
the ftligioue convulsions of past centuries.
We, however, are not more aware of these dan-
gerous tendencies of the ultra-Romanists, than Roman
catholic. themselves. However they glory in Veer
powerful c,cleareatical regime, especially when they
have been for centuries oppressed, and when they at
length arise in equality and in triumph against their
oppressors, still these enlightened Roman catholic*
feel that in their church laymen undergo a yoke*
And even they are not unwilling to invoke the aid of
the state in delivering them from the over burden of
such a yoke. We can sand no better proof of this
then the letter, just publ'shed, of Lord SUREWSBCRY,
who, with all has devotion for WISP.MAN, denounces
the arrogance of CULLEN,' and admits that the civil
rights o parents ought in certain cases to be pro-
tected from the clergy.
Arid this is the admission of no liberal cetbo'ic.
Molten such is the opinien of Lord &foment-or,
what most 13_ the opioion of a host of lay embolus,
liberal and enlightened men ? By consulting therrt
and adopting the guarantees, which they in fairness
must adroit to be required, a government ought to
arrive at some legal and c:netitutiimal mode, of re-
stricting theltomieh episcopate and its synodical action
within such bounds as are consistent with freedom of
religious °pits ion,a•.d with the fall waintenar C., of civil
and of social rights.

• "nut bud th, violent 'ant extrinneent noliticoaclighue piety
in [rebind Benxi din neovokinn • condemn- Won of the Queen'.
Uullegre under Erelr•to.tilml Gemara, t freely silmit there miiht be
OWN' foe intrriereoce to protect the civil eighteen parent.mut uecure
to them the free enjormeat under their ono enrol te.ponsibilny el
the tenipinil ad. dit "gm offered them by the itivernment in the eCu-
aition 04 their children."

SIR CHARLES NAPIER'S valedictory address to the
Indian armies is certainly one of the most paternal
and most useful, and the least her is of any such
document ever issaed perhaps by a great commander.
Let us only imagine the general of any other country
bidding farewell to that army which hod overcome
the Sikh power, and completed the conquest of Hin-
dustan. What congratulation, what grandiloquence he
would infallibly pour forth. Sir CHARES.S, however,
bath but a bit of homely advice to offer. And it is
simply this—" Him% get into debt."
The great principles of morality which Sir CIRRI:ES
marshals forth as condemning such a practice ere also
characteristic. lie does not say that the injuring
another by taking his goods end never paying for
them is against laws moral or divine ; he data no:
argue that it is wrong, unworthy of the Christian or
the man ; be merely assures the young soldier that
such practices are ungentlemanly, and in general the 1,
consequence of a vulgar education. Vulgarity, so-
cording to Sir CIRRUS, is the essence and the cause
of crime; whilst to be " weil bred" is to be virtuous.
We do not seek to blame Sir CHARLES NAPIER
for using the common parlance of society, and for
employing those arguments which are calculated to
have most weight with those he is addressing. Dr.
ARNOLD himself used just the same language to his
scholars; even he appealed to the most anti.
Christian principle in males nature,—pride, in order
to induce them to adopt Chris. ian morals and good
conduct. If our clergy have done this, who can cast
it op as a crime to a commander-in-chief that he founds
his code of morals upon gentility
And yet it is canines, that at a time when 'den-
tion itself is rendered impossible, and literally denied
to the bumbler classee, because a powerful party
insist that neither principle should be instilled nor
knowledge given, unless it were religious principle
and religious knowledge—it is singular, we must ray,
that men in authority, wiehirg to recommend a vir-
tuous line of conduct, should invoke neither the
principles of re ligion, nor those of morality, but merely
that feudal pride of superiority which elevate the
well-born above the vulgar.
The Get we fear to b., that most of men have two
sets of principles, and two rules of conduct—ore
arising from religious motives to guide them in the
serious decisions of life; the .ther, a meander), code,
consisting of motives of more every day use. The
last should be composed of the principle of morality.
Hot our schools o' education wid cot hese of morality.
Thry will teach reiigious tenets cs all in all; and it
turns out that these will tot ect as all in all. For your
ever so religions man will have, besides his religious,
at.other ai.d a minor set of 1111,:ica. arising from
his birth, his lioneur, or his station. All England at
home is ringing with a voice that declares that no
man ought to have any principle of condect lees then
" vital Caririanity." As to a man being superior
from moral principle, he would be scouted as a dead
branch, a worse than vicious man. _ And national

such as exists at Iraq for the poor, ir I
bleed on this assumption. And yet an English
commander-in-chief can &Al no premple to excite is
the breasts of thousands of yruog Englishmen but
their pride in being considered gentlemen, and the
I..trror they must feel in btiog stignittieed as ets/gar.
Sir CHARLES NAPIER has, however, one good rea-
son for appealing to the young t..fficer's love of genti-
lity, which is, that the extravagance and indebtedams
lin India are owing is • great nittssure to those very
`ideas of aestility acquired at home and developed in
India. Those id**s couple gentility with expense,
superiority with the erjoyment of luxury, and the
parade of wealth. And what such • seed as that
sdwn in England and transplanted to the wit and
climate of India produces, we see plainly enough.
But it is all the result of education, of exclusive
and of over-geoted, rather than of vulgar
o,Ncation. IVltat an English youth waste—
dot:iced to live for several years of hie lit*
rip,in ode or two hundred • year, is to hare • l'ttle
mart -uigarity infused into his eclat ation, vulgarity