The Sun.
London, England, 1831-07-11 00:00:00

'1"

1

The rase of the Rev. Robert Taylor having bee,
adverted to by some of our contemporaries, we shalt
gay a few words on the subject. It is no good de-
fence against the offence of which this individual
was found guilty, that he himself does not believe
in the truth of the religion of which he burlesqued
the ceremonies, because, in all countries, religion i•
received upon trust and without examination by the
great body of the people, and a certain respect is
due to the feelings of the people, whieh such bur-
lesques are calculated to outrage. The more igno-
rant the people, the more are they alive to the in-
dignity offered to what they consider sacred. In
Turkey, though the Mahometans ere, upon the
whole, perhaps more tolerant than Christians,
anything like desecration of a mosque or pro-
fanation of religious ceremonies, would bring in-
stant destruction upon the actor. For a Christian to
enter a mosque during prayer,oreven to ascend a mi.
narer, is, we believe, death. It is curious enough that
Mr. Bentham, in proceeding through Turkey to
Russia, nearly fell a victim to the malice of a Greek,
who, on his expressing a wish to ascend a minaret
for the sake of the view, told him he might do so
without danger; and if it hod not been established
that he was ignorant of the law, and deceived by
the Greek, the sacrilege would have cost him his
life. In most of the countries of Europe, the bur-
lesque of the Sacrament would have led to the in-
stant massacre of the Rev. Robert Taylor. No mat-
ter what the religion, something is due to the feel-
ings of those who have been brought up in the idea
that its ceremonies are sacred, and that they eves,
endanger their own salvation by looking on with in-
difference while they are desecrated. A Protestant,
who, in a Catholic country knowingly shocks the
feelings of the people, is deserving of punishment.
We have no hesitation in saying that half the names
in " Fox's Book of Martyrs," and in the " Scots
Worthies," were as deserving of punishment as the
Rev. R. Taylor. The founders of the Quakers
who entered churches (steepleshouses), and dis-
turbed the service, were leservedly punished.
Nine-tenths of the reistsionaries from this Country
are elually guilty of a want of regard for the
feelings of the people whom they visit, and have
no right to complain of the consequences. We are
not now arguing the question, whether it is possible
to overturn or reform a religion without doing vio-
lence to the feelings of those who profess it. We
believe it is not. The first Christians who entered
the Temples and destroyed the statues of Jupiter
and the other deities, (lid more probably to make
converts than the reasoner,. The coarse abuse and
open ridicule of some of the Sacraments of the Ca-
tholic Church, did more to shake the creed with the
million than learned disquisitions. The Quakers
have made no converts since they became rational,
and Unitarians Item destined never to be a nume-
rous sect, because they do not address themselves to
he senses, but to the understanding. A prudent
man, in whatever country he may happen to be,
and whatever his own opinions may be, will be cau-
tious how far he shocks the opinions or prejudices
of the natives. But no religion was ever overturned
or reformed by prudent men. The prudent men, in
all matters, whether in religion or politics, carefully
observe the signs of the times, and never declare
themselves of any opinion till no man can be charged
with singularity for adopting it. We take it for
granted that the Rev. R. Taylor is a fool, for disre-
garding the feelings of the people in matters ofreligion.
In all religions the Deity is supposed to require from
the worshippers the avenging of outrages offered
to him ; and to look on with indifference while such
outrages are being committed is deemed a sin. In
a Catholic country the not kneeling down, %then
the hostie passes, is such an outrage. The bur-
lesquing the Sacrament of the Lord's supper is the
same in a Protestant country. A Catholic who in
the one case, and a Protestant who in the other, did
not punish the outrages, are indifferents, and not
true believers. In all such eases an offends-r may
count with certainty on conviction for his offence
before any popular tribunal. Free discussion has
really no existence. In some countries there is a
greater approximation to it than in others. In all
countries there is the utmost freedom for those who
entertain the prevailing opinions. Argument, in-
vective, abuse, raillery, are on one side legitimate
weapons of controversy; on the other, offences
which deserve the utmost sererily of the law.—
No man disapproves of sarcasm and ridicule em-
ployed in a good cause; but it is detestable to em-
ploy them in a bad cause; and the cause of
which he approves is always the good cause,
and that of which he disapproves the bad cause.
We should without hesitation Pet down any
man who runs counter to the religious feelings
of the country in which he happens to be, as in
some sort deranged. Evert in France it would be
hazardous to go so far as he has gore. We say de-
ranged, because infidels have not the same excuse
for indiscretion that the believers in a particular re-
ligion have. A religious man would deem it a sin
were he not to resent an affront offered to his reli-
gion ; but an infidel does not lie under the same
obligation to punish believers. Zeal in a religionist,
therefore, however indiscreet, may be deemed duty ;
an infidel has not the excuse of duty for indiscretion.
But whatever may be the case with the Rev. Robert
Taylor, we only wish to remind those who might
think no punishment too severe for him, that bad
precedents are almost always set in cases in which
the feelings of the people are on the side of the pre-
cedent. Now, though it might he very proper to
debar the Rev. Robert Taylor from pen, ink, and
paper, and to subject him to felons' discipline, yet
every dog has his day : and some of those who now
rejoice at the punishment of the Rev. Robert Tay-
lor, may yet find the precedent inconvenient when
applied to themselves. Let us never forget, that a
time may come when men in power may find it de-
sirable to avail themselves of every precedent to
crush public writers. Blasphemy is a wide word.
We have no doubt that Mr. Beverley, for instance,
would ,-)e pronounced guilty of blasphemy, by sine-
teen-twentieths of the Clergy of England. It is new
in this country to treat libellers as felons. The oldest
of us may, however, lite to repent the precedent.—
Morning Chronicle.

There is now a very singular watchword, or party
apophthegm, got up on the subject of the great Bill,
and with respect to its success in the House cf
Lords, upon which we are inclined to make a re-
mark or two. It is said that the demand for Parlia-
mentary Reform is a mere "clamour," and that the
Upper House, the hereditary legislators of the

country, must not yield to clamour. We say the
same : let neither }louse of Parliament yield to
clamour. But we would entreat the illustrious body
which we are now principally addressing, just to
consider for a moment what that is which it is now

attempted to designate as clamour. First, it has
continued for much more than half a century, ever
increasing. It has sprung from the wise, the pru-
dent, the patriotic of every rank and of every shade
of opinion in other respects; and predictions have
been uttered by no ordinary statesmen, that if it
were not respected, if it were not complied with,
the settled institutions of the country Would be
overthrown,—" if the House of Commons did not
reform itself within, it would be reformed from
without with a vengeance." What would now be
the case if the House of Commons, at last conscien-
tiously setting about the reformation of itself, were
prevented by the Rouse of Lords? Next, this
clamour has actually formed the present House of
Commons such AS it is : into which there is not a
single Member returned by independent electors that
is not a reformer, so that those who make the

clamour are the whole independent constituency o 1
the realm. Such is the nature of the clamour both;
as to duration, extent, and the character of those:
from whom it springs. Beware of the word clamour;
n a bad sense: it may lead to mischievous conse-c
quencee. With the just, and unanimoos, and perse-i
vering requisition of a free people, there is nothing.