The Express.
London, England, 1847-04-16 00:00:00

. .
. fit .ierljr-- 'OO.
MAILS.
The We* Duda map., oxeluding those bit Med" Tbeitesess, and
aballseatutah, mettles made up on tho seeralag litho Oth Apr%
The meth for Vigo,
morninga" Madeira, Cadin, aad Othealter,
bo mods uo J. f the 17th April
The overload made Mr tietrallor, (imam, the loafed Wanda,
thdia, ithog-konganifivisio, Somoompton,
..lirptirogTo=d° mails, Mancillee,Pro *the Medi
Egypt, Ad" Ogles, thrla, Hang dong, nox, .111 he mods up on tho
siallis of eiellb iipeL
Tbs tai der liguth NW" Vaa Diesnonb Land, and deo
Zealand mil be 111110theleal tbss=xit the 30th April.
The roods tit mos NMI Isnanda, mad tho United
Maim, •111 la orb up is lip wiffilig ard May.
Ths maps dm Da IbmateLlbs Nem Pisis,Moado Video, Perna's.
:Znflibraelt Mr"' 'lll
be
op se the

111011 HATS AT LON DON.BRIDOE.
Tun MT—Norge,. 27 MI3. pot I ; J 772.7.000. 20 .tn. WO7 7.
Tcogoaaow —Morning, ob. pest ; Altermoom, $6 m 33. P• 27

LONDON, FRIDAY, APRIL 16.

WE greatly regret the rejection of Mr. WATSON'S
bill by the House of Commons. It is true that no
Immediate consequences would have followed from its
adoption; that priests will not be imprisoned or
popery persecuted, because the remnants of an obso-
lete code of laws mill are left in the statute book.
But even the practical inefficiency of the enactments
which it was proposed to repeal is a proof of the
weakness or dishonesty of those who have for the
present succeeded in maintaining them. The argu-
ments which have been brought forward on the side
of the majority are composed in different proportions
of twaddle and insincerity. The speeches of the
ultra-protestant section of the house, represented by
Mr. PLIIMPIRE, Sir ROBERT INGLIS, and Mr. NEw-
DEGATE, are rather feeble than dishonest. They
express the genuine sentiment of tke speakers, hatred
to "the Pope, that pagan full of pride, and the wish,
as they cannot injure, at least to insult him.
Thrice-told stories of Catholic persecutions, perfectly
true, no doubt, and perfectly irrelevant, are brought
forward as reasons why protestants, who under pre-
sent circumstances cannot conveniently persecute

them in return, should at least pretend to.do.so. We
have net observed any attempt on the part of Bir
Roriza-r Inctis to show how the remaining penal
laws tend to protect us against the dire machinations
of Dominicans, Capuchins, or Jesuits. On the con-
trary, the anti-popery party exaggerates on
occasion the success and the power of the ls=
religion under the existing law. It believes, or
pretends to believe, that the influence of a foreign
spiritual head is every day more and more extend-
ing itself, to the detriment of the constitutional
supremacy of the crown : it does not even
pretend to believe, that the laws, which were framed
to resist such encroachments, can be enforced. It
contents itself with thinking that according to the
constitution this terrible influence is considered to be
non-existent. As a portion of the legislature, the
party persists in dearmr the propositions, which as
a body of anti-popery agitators, it principally devotee
itself to affirming.
Such are the reasons against the bill which fall
most proparly under the head of twaddle ; and
though twaddle—the sophistry of illogical minds—is
always, like other sophistry, more or less dishonest,
it perhaps may rank, intellectually, a little lower, and
therefore, morally, a little higher than the official
diplomatic mystification by which Mr. GouLeuari,
on behalf of the less fanatical part of the majority,
indicates and attempts to conceal the real objection
which has prevented the abolition of the penal laws.
Mr. GOULBURN thinks that the settlement of 1829
was a great compact, and ought not to be disturbed ;
he thinks it better not to raise religious discussions ;
not to persuade the Roman Catholics that they are
oppressed; above all, not to disturb "sensitive pro-
testant minds."

The questlon is, for whom is it better? Is it better
for the esthetics to be insulted by the continuance of
these foolish relics of antiquity ? Is it better for the
" sensitive " protestants themselves that their preju-
dices should be countenanced and encouraged by a
legislative body which itself despises them ? Or is
it only better for members of a parliament,
now in its last session, moat of whom have
some " sensitive protestant minds" among their con-
stituents, not to lose or endanger the loss of a few
supporters, by giving an honest and independent
vote? Some of Mr. OUULBUISX'S suggestions, in-
deed, would be worthy of attention at the proper
time. It is evident that it would be impolitic to
endanger the public peace by Catholic processions
among a hostile population ; and we should support
to the utmost extent the right of government super-
vision of monastic ceders ; but Mr. GOULBURN well
knows that these points might have been raised more
properly in committee, and that a large majority
would have supported him in any provision necessary
for such purposes. By rejecting the whole measure,
the house precludes itself from the benefit
of the reasonable objections, which might be
raised to certain clauses of the bill. It
prohibits processions, not on the ground of policy
and public order, but because they are idolatrous ;
and it refuses to recognise monks because their vows
are supposed to be doctrinally wrong, and not because
monastic institutions are civilly dangerous. The
government is debarred from all inspection and con-
trol of convents because the law declares that convents
do not exist. The most dangerous, obnoxious, and anti-
social of Catholic institutions is left in entire independ-
ence, merely that it may be deprived of the compliment
of legal recognition. These references to " sensitive
protestant minds" are the more dishonest arguments
of which we have spoken. The electioneering purposes
for which they are brought forward relieve them from
the character of mere twaddle; bat as we have already
observed that that great branch of style is always
tinged with dishonesty, so we cheerfully admit that
even the most insincere opponents of the bill have
mixed up abundance of twaddle with their more
wilful sophistry.
If it was possible to be surprised at absurdities
which are rapeseed every day, wo might wonder at
the utter misapprehension of the point at issue whisk
was exhibited by many of the speakers in the debate.
Lord ARUNDEL, as a Roman Catholic, declared, with
manly frankness, that while he demanded for his
creed political equality, he so far believed in its reli-
gious superiority as to hope that it would ultimately
annihilate Protestantism. What less could • sincere

and zealous Catholic hope? Exeter Hall, with infi-
nitely less external appearance of probability, hopes
to evangelise the Catholic world, including
Ireland ; and Exeter Hall is, on its own
principles of exclusiveness, in the right.
The man who believes any practical proposition
to be universally true and indispensably necessary, is
bound to wish and entitled to hope for its universal
reception. Popery and protestantism are both anx-
ious to proselytise. If either is in the exclusive pos-
session of religious truth, it will undoubtedly prevail
in the end. Lord ARUNDEL shares with the vast
majority of the inhabitants of western Christendom
the belief that his church is in the right, and to es-
tablish her right he only asks for fair play and
freedom from persecution. We, who differ from him,
also ask for fair play for his church, without the least
apprehension that she will re-absorb the world.
But the violent anti-popery section of the House of
Commons are of opinion that Lord ARUNDEL has
made an admission fatal to his cause. Annihilate
protestantism, indeed ! they say. la this the
religion we are to tolerate? Are these the
schemes we are called upon to farther? And in
favour of such a religion as popery too? a religion
under which Queen Buz...BETH was excommunicated
and ESCOBAR wrote, the religion against which we
have been declaiming ever since we learned to speak?
Do the papists openly avow what we have always
said that they were plotting, the universal dominion
of her of Babylon ? We begin to think that we meant
something after all, and that there is a real danger to
be resisted. _

And yet Lord ARUNDEL merely said, what every
person, we presume, who holds to catholicism pro-
fellers to think, that his form of religion was true.
The remainder of his proposition was made
to his hands, and has often been repeated
in a general form. Truth is great, it is
said, and will prevail. But statesmen of the Inglis-
Plumptre school always hold that there is one thing
stronger than truth, and that Popery must be tied
hand and foot to make truth a match for such au an-
tagonist. It would, we admit, be difficult to find a
Catholic student who could not refute the superficial
ad ,aptandum attacks upon his creed, whicil Mr.
SriaiNra and Mr. NEWDEGATE for the twentieth
time bring forward. There are innumerable reasons
why religious discussions should be excluded from
the house, and one of those nations is the excessive
weakness of the arguments which religious poli-
ticians always tender for the acceptance of a popu-

lee andience. The attempt to it'spose in a few sen-
tences, of difficulties which have mastered the most
subtle minds, and furnished matter for. centuries
of discuicsion, to any thinking man Mlles own
condemnation on its face. The House of Commons,
in listening to the controversy, was .as useleesly,
though not qaite as indecently, occupied, as the con-
ference at Crosby-hall, who, on the same day, re-
oeived, as we are informed, " with b iisterous
laughter" a discourse of a certain Dr. Km Isis on
" the forms of the church of England, parties tiarlY
baptism." Those Anglican members of the Howse of
Commons who can satisfy themselves in a few
tepees that catholicism has not a leg to stand upo.'t
are hardly entitled to complain of the "roars
laughter" which their own religious convictions
excite in the candid, enlightened, and tolerant
minds of the agitators against reading and
writing. Indeed, both parties act on the same
principle. One thinks that, in the absence
of persecution, Popery, though self-evidently absurd,
will prevail ; the other, that education must lead to a
universal adoption of the infinitely objectionable
forms of the English church, as a step to the still more
repulsive, and yet inevitable, abominations of Rome.
If it is agreeable to the ultra-protestants to repeat
the usual popular and inconclusive arguments against
popery in the proper regions of religious controversy,
let them by all means indulge their taste. If they
can convince any person whois not convinced already,
that catholicism is untenable, we shall be surprised,
but no way grieved. Only let them abstain
from urging their reasons on parliament. The
legislature of a kingdom in which one-fourth
of the enfranchised inhabitants are Roman
Catholics, is altogether precluded from acting on
the assumption that popery is founded on falsehood :
and even if a religion is false, its falsehood is no
reason for persecution. St. Stephen's is not Crosby
Hall. Roars of laughter on the peccliarly facetious
and mirth-inspiring subject of baptism may be inju-
dicious, as offending the feelings of a great majority
of the English people, including nearly the whole of
the higher classes ; but as long as the laughter only
shakes the sides of those who have hired the hall for
their temporary use, it is not for us to interfere.
On the whole, it is, perhaps, a more harm-
less occupation than agitating against reading
and writing, for nobody will be laughed out
of his religions opinions, and the poor may possibly
be agitated out of their right to education. But the
House of Commons is not hired by Sir ROBERT
INGLIs and his party for the purpose of venting their
peculiar opinions. The duty to be performed there
is not to give a decision which no one respects on
points of doctrine, but to make just laws and to re-
move iniquitous distinctions. This duty was neglected
on Wednesday. A new parliament, without the im-
mediate fear of "sensitive" constituents before its
eyes, will probably settle the question in accordance
with justice and common sense.

THE opponents of popular education being at all
furthered or aided by the state, have certainly con-
trived to kick forth a convenient stumbling-block in
its way, being the question of how the Roman
Catholics are to fare under the proposed scheme.
Mr. BAINES and his friends have made the most of
it; for, whilst some of them in the Conference have
denounced the government scheme as decoying the
youth of England under the banner of l'useyism and
Rome, others, and especially Mr. BAINES himself,
denounce the same scheme for not admitting the
Catholics to all the favours and privileges held forth
by state education.
Sir J. GRAHAM brought the subject before the house
last night, and Lord J. RUSSELL took the opportunity
of explaining the present position of the government
with respect to the question, with its future inten-
tions. That it is the principle and purpose of the
government to extend the benefits of whatever money
the state may grant for the furtherance of popular
education to that portion which so much needs it,
namely, the Roman Catholic poor, the Irish and
their descendants in England, no one at all acquainted
with the political sentiments and career of Lord
JOHN Russut and his colleages can, for a moment,
doubt. But the fact unfortunately is, that no pro-
vision of the kind has yet been made for Roman 1
Catholics. The minutes of 1839, framed for the
furtherance of education, at a moment when
the anti Catholic effervescence was at Its

sot, did not contemplate, much less permit, eny
grants to schools not making use of the scrip-
ture in the authorised version. Those of 1846,
developing an old, not creating a new system,
contemplated vaguely some mode of extending grants
to schools which did not admit the reading of Scrip-
ture. But we understand, as the matter came to be
discussed, much greater difficulties than were at first
contemplated started up in the way of a simple assi-
milation of scriptural and non-scriptural schools.
Several towns have a numerous lower class of
Catholics. To afford them the means of education
would be the most desirable of benefits. But a great
school opened in one of our manufacturing towns,
under the superintendence of the Catholic clergy and
teachers, would of course not refuse Protestant
scholars. How is unfair proselytism to be avoided
in schools over whose mode of religious teaching
government exercises no control ? No doubt such
unfairness can be obviated. But the solution of this
requires time, and could not be forthwith achieved
No as to satisfy at once the zealous Catholic and the
sensitive Dissenter.

It is much to be regretted that, owing to this cause,
such Catholic schools u object to the use of the
authorised version cannot take advantage of this
year's vote. But we have good reason to think that
they will not lose by waiting; and at all events
the grievance—for such it is—is one for the Roman
Catholic body and prelates to weigh, not for the
avowed enemies of catholicism to make use of, as a
factious weapon, against state education.
If we bear in mind that no grants have yet been
made except to two classes of schools ; and that all
the rest were placed in a category apart, to be dealt
specially with by the government, it is too much to
expect that all these specialities and their respective
difficulties could at once be met and provided for.
But it is no reason, because we cannot do all, that we
should not do acme& ma we can.

The Chamber of Deputies was engaged on Tuesday
and Wednesday on the debate on the project of law
respecting the affairs of the Bank of France, when the
report, of which we gave a summary several days
since, was brought ander discussion. The report,
which is prolix, contains only three points of practical
importance. The first is the proposition to authorise
the bank to issue both in Paris and from its branches
notes of 200 francs and upwards, whereas the limit
imposed on the value of notes to be issued is, by
the project of law presented by the government,
230 francs. It is understood that this modification
will be acceded to by the government. But an
ameadment has been moved to red ace still more
the limit of the value of notes to 100
francs, which is advocated with much ability
in the chambers; and as it is energetically sup-
ported by the Journal des Debate, it may be
inferred to be not unacceptable to the cabinet. It is,
however, understood that some of the influential
agents of the bank are opposed to it. The second
proposition of the report is to destroy all local
banks, and to replace them by branches of
the national bank • and the third is to eve full
liberty to the bank to invest its capital, eitb er in the
public funds, or in any other securities it ms.y consider
advantageous.
The actual amount of metallic carrene7 circulating
in France cannot be precisely asoerta;ned ; but no
one estimates it at much lees than 'eighty millions
sterling, while some contend that it is considerably
more. What is certain is, that v.ithin sixty-three
years about two hundred million* sterling have been
coined at the national mint, of which considerably
less than twenty millions have gone to the colonies,
including Algiers. Making, then, the largest allow-
ance for the efflux of specie in other direc-
tions,
it is certain that Frame possesses
in proportion to its populatiou, wealth, and
commerce, a greater amount of metallic currency
than any other country in the world. It is contended,
therefore, that a great extenrlon of the paper cur-
rency of the Bank of France may be permitted, with
advantage to commerce, and perfect security to the
public.
The section which has seceded from the minis-
terial majority in. the Chamber, under the title
of progressist conservatives, continues to acquire a
strength. This party pledged itself, when M. de
Itmusat's project of parliamentary reform was in
the bureaux, that without giving its concurrence to
the details of that measure, something nevertheless