The Sun.
London, England, 1853-01-24 00:00:00

rial consanguinity still lighter, we behold in our
day the opposite scale loaded, in addition to the
interests of one mighty family, with the interests
of some great, stirring, and inquiring people.
But, without availing ourselves of the new and
out-of-door considerations which have rendered
family compacts of no avail in the comity- of
modern nations ; without alluding to the enor-
mous changes which have made statesmanship
simple and straightforward, though vast and com-
prehensive, instead of being the reverse of all this,
mysterious and 'tortuous, yet petty and mean,
and narrow and selfish, cherishing the aggrandise-
ment of the few, and holding the many in disdain
or forgetfulness without adducing arguments
so conclusive and at the same time so obvious as
those which this very altered age affords, it is
quite evident that the old system which excommu-
nicated Sovereigns from the pale of natural affec-
tion was rotten at the core. It would be easy to
say what was lost, but hard is the proof and scanty
is the evidence of what was ever gained by placing
the prince's fireside under interdict and the ruler's
best feelings under anathema. However strange it
may appear, "doctrinaires" always mislead their
disciples, and never yet were right themselves. It
has been the same in all times. Let us glance at
the logic of the solemn prigs of another age ; let
us examine in a brief manner what their system
was worth. The very basis of the system of mar-
riages of policy between princely houses was this—
that the feeling must always be postponed to in-
terest ; and let us remember that the only possible
fruit expected by politicians from the observance of
this cold-blooded rule was that they should, on the
contrary, make feeling prevail ever interest. We
appear to state a contradiction, and we, do, state a
contradiction ; but it is not our own ; it is the ai:
tradiction of those who, ever since men lived in
community, have over-reached themselves the
contradiction of reasoncrs who, luckily, are the
blindest and most illogical, while they are the most
ignoble—the contradiction of those politicians who
would gladly allow a monarch all the debaucheries
that reluctant history may have recorded, or cor-
rupt satire have conceived, in order to save him
from the irredeemable atrocity of honourable love
and the damning disaster of a peaceful home. These
things may be blessings to the subject who aspires
to them ; to the prince they are curses, if he stoops
so low.

But to unfold the logic of which we have spoken,
suppose a prince connected with another prince by
marriage, a marriage of policy, in which feeling has
been duly and scientifically postponed, to interest.
Either the interests of the two princes remain
always identical or they do .not. If their interests
remain always identical the marriage was superflu-
ous ; it can effect, at best, only what was already,
by the very calculations which induced the con•
tract, secured without it ; as well, in that case,
have consulted virtue, love, and nature ; the fine
stroke of state-craft was not needed ; and, if there
was any sacrifice of the heart in it, or of the vow,
why it was a sacrifice wasted and thrown away.
But what in the other alternative ? Suppose that
the interests of the two princes cease to remain
identical or coincident. Then, either the kins-
man-in-law seeks his own advantage in con-
tempt of the tie of affinity, or lie foregoes,
for the sake of that tie, his own advantage.
In the former case the political marriage fails to
effect the only purpose for which it was perpetrated
(on this point we need not loiter) ; and, in the other
supposition, if sentiment rather than policy prevail, ,
there is a stultification of the very principle which
dictated the contract ; and that rule which was em-
braced as solid, wise, and unfailing, is proved to be
fatuitous, worthless, infructuous, and vain. If the
kinsman-in-law foregoes his own proper advantage
for the sake of the tie of affinity, what is this but
postponing interest to feeling ? And yet the mar-
riage itself was contracted on the principle of post-
poning feeling to interest. In other words the re-
flection of a fire is always hotter than the fire itself.
The husband is not expected or believed to love the
wife, or to prefer her to his interests ; but the hus-
band's relations must of course henceforth despise
their interests for her sake. Or, on the other
hind, the wifii4 is shot exHicted or supposed to
have married her husband anything but ag-
grandisement. But what she would not do for
a husband, her relativv cannot fail' to do Tor a
connection ; the is, they will sacrifice interest to
feelin, whore feeling is naturally weak, while she
wouid not and could not sacrifice interest to feel-
ing where feeling ought certainly to be strong.
What mighty profit did the present Emperor's
uncle derive from his marriage with Marie Louise,
and his consequent connection with the house of
Hapsburgh Lorraine ? It helped to send him to
die a heart-broken captive at St. Helena. Yet his
sacrifice at the shrine of policy was singularly com-
plete ; he was not a bachelor immolating the chances
of domestic felicity, but a husband immolating that
felicity itself.
The salons may " gird at " the nephew ; the
drawing-rooms of Paris may re-echo with the
sallies of inane sarcasm, but he has made his appeal
to the human heart and conscience at large. His
people will not be estranged from him because they
behbld a beautiful, a gracious, and a spirited young
Empress at his side, whom he has married for mo-
tives which all men secretly respect. The Haroun-
al-4aschid of France has found a suitable bride.

CHARL'ES MATHEWS AND THE PRESS.
(From the Morning Post.)
Mr. Charles Mathews, in several letters, distin-
guished more by what is called smartness than by
truth or by good taste, has brought two serious
accusations against the London newspapers gene-
rally. We should not have troubled our readers
with our personal vindication from either of them,
or have publicly noticed the subject, had we not
feared that our silence might be construed into
acquiesence in slanders directed against a very de-
serving body of men. As it was, we felt that it
was a duty both to the gentleman in question—to
the public—and to our own position, to call on Mr.
Charles Mathews either to substantiate or to retract
his assertions.

(From the Morning Post.)
Our readers will find, in the letter of our Paris
correspondent, the remarkable speech of the Em-
peror of the French, communicating to the great
bodies of the State his intended marriage. His
words, like the act which they announce, are frank
and manly, and of deep interest.
We have already said that marriage would, no
doubt, create a new bond between Louis Napoleon
andthe Frenchpeople, and confer additional stability
on his power. Such, we imagine, will be the case
in France. To us, however, its European effect is
of•greater importance. We rejoice to recognise in
it the complete independence of France and of her
Emperor. Unshackled by the political ties in-
volved in an alliance with a princess, or even with
a ninety-ninth cousin of Austria, Prussia, or any
other Power—free from from foreign claims in the
hour of prosperity, free from foreign support in a
darker clay, we shall see Napoleon 111. stand or
fall,, solely and purely, by the will of France.
That is what we wish to see. If there be one
thing more than another proven by modern history,
it is this, that the French people can and do cast
away -from them that which suits them not. If
the power. of Napoleon be a vicious tyranny, as
some pretend, it cannot last. If, on the other
hand, it is a Government suitable to the French
nation, nothing can overthrow it. This is a ques-
tion simply for the decision of our neighbours. We
may risk a guess as to its probable solution, but it
is no matter of ours, beyond the interest and the
desire we have to see established on the other side
of the Channel a lasting form of Government.
The union which the Emperor now contracts " is
not," he says, " in accordance with the traditions
of ancient poicy, and -that is its peculiar advan-
tage." This statement he fully supports in his cha-
racteristic speech, wherein he fully appreciates "the
false security" arising from royal alliances, " which
frequently substitute family interests for those of
the nation." Such deceptive vanities he puts aside,
and, boldly professing as his object " to bring back
France within the pale of the old monarchies," he
firmly expresses his belief that the surest way to
effect that is to pursue a straightforward and honest
policy.
The determination always to remember his ori-
gin, and to preserve his true character, " by frankly
assuming in the face of Europe the position of
Parvenu, the most glorious of titles, when attained
by the suffrages of a free people," is one of those
true and happy expressions which show that power
has not turned the head of the ruler of France, and
that he is capable of appreciating his own position
and the feelings of the French people towards him
with singular sagacity and temperate calculation.
There can be no doubt but that had Louis Napo-
leon chosen to wait, he might have had his choice
of German princesses, and we in England, who so
much appreciate the privacy and sacredness of
family ties; cannot but admire the sincerity and the
generosity which places " independence, the qua-
lities of the heart, and domestic happiness, above
dynastic prejudices, and the calculations of ambi-
tion."

The first charge was that the privilege of admis-
sion given by theatrical managers, for the purpose
of report and criticism, had been fraudulently ap-
plied to that of pecuniary profit, to the great loss
and damage of Mr. C. Mathews. To this we con-
sidered simple denial of any such doings on our
part, and entire renunciation of Mr. Mathews'
tickets of admission, a sufficient reply. But this
accusation was followed by a public declaration from
the same source, that " many of the critics are the
style of men to be cajoled into saying what they
don't think, by a nightly order."
We could not suppose that a gentleman and a
man of honour had made such a sweeping charge
of falsehood and dishonesty as this without some
distinct ground in what he at least believed to be
fact. We therefore called on him, in justice to
ourselves and to those gentlemen to whom we and
other journals entrust a difficult and responsible
duty, to name the many guilty persons. Mr.
Mathews answered that he had the authority of
the Spectator for what he had said. We showed
that his reply was insufficient and incorrect, and
pressed him further. The very singular result we
subjoin, leaving our readers to judge whether such
" skimble-skamble stuff" as the inapplicable and
inconsequent apologue of the pastrycook and the
boys is a sufficient justification of libel, or whether,
if Mr. Charles Mathews had possessed a single fact
to support his assertion, he would not have pro-
duced it rather than have confessed his weakness
by such ridiculous evasions :

" TO THE EDITOR OF THE MORNING POST.
" Lyceum, Jan. 22, 1853.
Sir,---Some time ago, a nice respectable little boy
was in the habit of stationing himself near the door of
a pastry-cook's shop in one of our London thorough-
fares, and so recommended himself by his civility in di-
recting customers to the shop, that the pastrycook got
into the way of giving him a few cakes daily for his
attention.

" Several other equally respectable little boys soon
applied for and received cakes in the same way for the
same kind service, till by degrees all the little boys in
London, respectable and otherwise, claimed as a right
the same advantage, and openly declared their determi-
nation not only to eat the cakes but to abuse the giver
to all his customers.
v u"rAe
d t
blength,
these
littlefinding b
otyhsa
thatt
obliged to go without, he declared his intention of giving
them no more—the good little boys thus, as usual,
suffering for the fault of the naughty ones.
so
the inanpyublcaickes was were
actuadli;
de-
voured
wissofhis
shop werethat
broken,''Nexatndmoonrntihnegbeaalldlethoe w
ofthe
endorh remarkingpa
perhaps the naughty little boys who had lost their pri-
vilege had done this mischief, the pastrycook, thinking
that the beable ought to be a good judge of the misdeeds
of naughty little boys, replied that he had no doubt of
the truth of that public functionary's remark.
" On this, one of the most respectable of the little
boys started up in an indignant manner and insisted on
the pastrycook giving the name of any little boy whom
he thought could be base enough to throw stones and
run away, for so paltry a reason as that of being deprived
of a pennyworth of infamously bad cakes. The poor
pastrycook was puzzled, The anonymous little boys
had all vanished, and he could only repeat, on the
authority of the beadle, that although he did not know
their names, he thought that many of them were likely
to have done so.

The tribute to Josephine, the "modest and good wife of General Bonaparte," is affecting from its evi-
dent heartfelt sincerity, and it is certainly in ac-
cordance with universal feeling that he mentions
her virtues with so much respect. Few women
have met with larger sympathy from all nations
than the Empress Josephine, whose divorce was
justly regarded as a blot equally on the heart and
the career of Napoleon.
Describing his future consort in terms equally
affectionate and modest, Louis Napoleon expresses
as his fondest hope with regard to her, that she
may " revive the virtues of the Empress Jo-
sephine."
We are heartily glad, then, of this marriage.
If the_power of Napoleon 111. stand, it cannot but
add to its respectability, independence, and influ-

"In like manner do I, sir, say to you, give me a list
of all the anonymous critics in London, and I may per-

•
".1
-- . .44
.31).
C.- • log
.1.0.2 e.,„ will refirrn a verdict of felo de se. . e. 4•
not any particular ecclesiastical bodk • u
,
,
_• t„
tli
4% A priests of all denominations, who mistoft tigrr.o ';1;
cation when they mingled in the strife+f
14:4
If ever Minister deserved gratitude det
of a people, it is Lord Aberdeen from th 0
He and his small band stood alone in resisting
storm, the hurricane of bigotry, which accom-
r panied the progress of the Ecclesiastical Titles Bill.
Neither the vista of office nor the blasts of popular
fury could frighten or lure him from his sedate and
; consistent course. He encountered the suspicions
of the Protestant Dissenters—he.braved the fana-
tical jealousy of the State Church—to do "justice
to Ireland"—and now from Ireland and Oxford
alone come opposition to his Government. Priests
again—what would they be at ? Their complaints
were incessant of Saxon domination and Saxon as-
cendancy. They denounced the partiality which
excluded Irishmen from the sweets of office. Juster
sentiments have inspired our rulers. The Premier,
resolved to obliterate the memory of that unhappy
Lyndhurst folly which denounced Irishmen as
"aliens in language, in blood, and in religion,"
calls to his councils the very men whom the Irish
people the most trusted, and who were ablest to
serve their country. No sooner has he afforded
them the opportunity of office to use their power
in behalf of their country, and given guarantees of
the impartiality of his administration by opening a
career of public usefulness to the very men in whose
integrity and ability their countrymen manifested
their greatest confidence; than the Catholic clbrgy
step forward to denounce him and them—the for-
mer as the corrupter of the patriotism of their
friends, and the latter as the bribed tools of Go-
vernment, bought up to help Ministers to enslave
the remnant of the tribes who yet prefer potato-
land to Illinois or the diggings. Dogs in the man-
ger, they will neither let Saxons govern them nor
permit the rule of their own Celtic leaders. Like
the lawyers in the Scripture, they will "neither go
in themselves nor let others enter." Their friends
discover that, when they seek to give the priests
influence by calling them influential, they have
but raised a devil, who will not be laid until he has
received an equivalent of mischief for his services
to those who seek his aid. The "Pope's brass baud"
discover that they are " hoist with their own
petard." . They fall back on the support of the
clergy and the price of their alliance is obsequious
subserviency to their---dictates. They catch a
Tartar, who will neither come with them nor let
them go. In every election committee there is an
inner inquisition of parish priests who dictate the
nomination and oversee the results. These gentry
look upon members of Parliament but as puppets
of the Pope and panders of 'the monkhood. If"
they can get but the Irish hnndretl members under
their thumb, they think they may rule 'England
from the Vatican, and supersede Temple-bar by
the Flaminian gate. Fortunately there are two
parties to be consulted in this bargain. The lead-
ing spirits among the Catholic laity cannot regard
this tyranny with sincere favour. They secretly
wince under it. They resist it as openly as they
dare. Even the Irish taste for vociferation and
exaggerated bombast sickens at the inflated rhodo- •
montade and the vehement malignity of the priest-
hood. Their coercion and intimidation at the re-
cent elections have alarmed the reflective, and
disgusted all. There is little real sympathy in
Ireland with ultramontane doctrines. The people
do not believe the clergy to be more than men.
They every day see their coarseness, their violence,
their reckless disregard of truthfulness, their un-
scrupulous use of means, to compass their ends.
The intelligent and independent among them be-
come gradually alienated from a Church that tole-
rates, and even advocates such a system. If they
do not become professed Protestants, they at least
divest themselves of the faith and sympathies of
Romanism. We have often appealed to the convic-
tions of our Irish neighbours. We intreat them now
to assert their independence. A case has been made
out against the interference of the clergy in politics.
We earnestly advise the laity to exclude them from
their councils, and to remand and remit them to
their sacerdotal duties. " Render unto Caesar the
things that are Caesar's." Parsons have nothing to
do with political platforms or hustings addresses.
The people are quite competent to manage their
own affairs. It is absurd toprate about a "Religious
Equality Association," if Father Murphy is to be
at the head of it ' • and Father Donohue is to have
it in his power to threaten with ex-communication
every minority that differs from him. Ireland has
no right to justice, if she be not just to herself ; she
is not at to be trusted either with freedom or
pOwer, if she sells the one to the Church, and hands
over the other to the clergy. Her Saxon fellow-
%eubjects have a right to say to hv---" Before we
recognise the equality of your 105' members with
ours, we must know what use you make of them—
whether they are their own asters—whether,
wlen they vote in our divisions, their votes are
their own or yours, and not the Pope's or John
Tuam's. You must learn to keep your parish priests
in their proper places. We have emancipated your
religion, but not to let it loose upon our liberties ;
we desire to give you equal rights, but not to ena-
ble your Church to acquire an ascendancy. We
say that no church has any concern with the secu-
lar affairs of man • and we will as little tolerate the
dictations of M'Hale as of Bloomfield. Irishmen!
cast your fetters from you—be free men—not the
the slaves of priests—shake your conscience loose
from the chains of sacerdotal usurpation, and stand
shoulder to shoulder with us in achieving new con-
quests for the people. Tell these blustering pul-
piteers that you can distinguish betwixt ecclesiasti-
cal authority and the overbearing insolence of
clerical officiousness, and that once for all you are
determined to manage your own affairs your own
way."