The Sun.
London, England, 1870-05-04 00:00:00

LONDON, WEDNESDAY, iIIAY 4, 1870.

NINETEEN years ago the House of Commons was
in one of its panics, and was legislating with the
amount of wisdom which is usually displayed at such
crises. The Pope had established the Romish
hierarchy in England, and straightway the Protes-
tantism of the country were in a state of
profound consternation, fearing that Englishmen
would be converted to Romanism without their
knowledge and against their will. The result of
this most undignified alarm was the introduction of
a bill to render penal the assumption of ecclesiastical
titles in this kingdom without the Sovereign's
consent. It was a funny remedy against Popery. It
did not propose to put down Popish Bishops, but
simply to prevent them calling themselves after.
the names of English towns ; a device which
showed a remarkable amount of faith in the value
of a name, but very little conception of the impor-
tance of the thing. The bill was opposed by Mr.
Gladstone and a few other illustrious men, who,
unhappily, have for the most part gone to their rest.
But it was carried by immense majorities, and
although the Irish Roman Catholic members, in order
to delay the bill, resorted to every expedient that the
forms of the House of Commons would permit,
they could not prevent the bill becoming law. It
was placed upon the Statute Book ; it remains there
to this day; it has been violated a dozen times a
day every one of the nineteen years since it was
passed; but it has never been enforced, and within
the last few hours the Government have given notice
that they intend to repeal it, and so roll away the
reproach that there is an Act of Parliament, not
twenty years old, which the Executive does not
venture to enforce.

Is it possible that our legislators can be insensible
to this history? It is most deeply instructive. It
contains a most powerful warning against intolerant
and panic-begotten legislation. Yet on the same
night , that Lord Granville announced the inten-
tion of Government to repeal the abortive
Ecclesiastical Titles Act, the House of Com-
mons was warmly, almost fiercely, engaged
in considering if it should take the preliminary steps
towards legislating against monastic institutions. It
is really melancholy and pitiful that in this seventh
decade of the nineteenth century such an idea should
be entertained. It might have been hoped that we
had made some progress towards real toleration
during the last quarter of a century, that we had at
least been warned by the miserable failure of the Act
of 1851. Yet, so far as regards a large number of
and (if we are to judge from the heap of peti-
tions presented to Parliament) so far as regards a large
portion of the nation likewise, there seems to have
been no improvement, no advance. Protestantism
in the mouths of such persons as Mr. Newdegate
and Mr. Chambers means only the right to persecute
Romanism, to put down an obnoxious religion by
the strong arm of the law. The real meaning of
Protestantism does not seem even to have dawned upon
these men. The right of private judgment and absolute
and entire freedom of conscience are on their lips, but
in their minds they make a reservation, and hold
that the right and the freedom shall be merely for
themselves. Fortunately there are some few mem-
bers of the British Legislature, who have formed a
more adequate conception. The loud cheers with
which their spokesman, Mr. Winterbotham, was
greeted, lead us to hope that the number is not so
small as would appear from the list of speakers.
Holding these views—believing that Protestantism
is not a mere negation, not only an anti-something,
but a positive vital principle—we cannot but share
Mr. Winterbotham's regret that any motion for
inquiring into the condition of conventual institu-
tions should be carried. We object to such
inquiry on the broad principle that every man
shall be free to worship God as he pleases,
provided that thereby he does no wrong to others.
There is also a special ground of objection. Monastic
institutions are illegal ; therefore Parliament will
be called upon either to enforce the law against them or
to repeal it. The first would be impossible, the second
would lead to much angry bitterness, of which there
has been already enough. The principle quieta non
movers is peculiarly applicable to bad legislation.
Unwise laws, the enforcement of which has been for-
bidden by the common sense of the people, should be
allowed to become obsolete. To repeal them pro-
vokes discussion, gives an opportunity for the bigots
to display their intolerance, and is, moreover, a waste
of time. However, the proposed investigation
has been made as harmless as it could be
made if there was to be any investigation at all.
Mr. Newdegate's triumph is very short-lived.
Instead of an inquiry into the constitution and disci-
pline of conventual institutions, he has got
merely an inquiry into the conditions upon
which they hold property. It would be a by no
means unmerited retribution if the result of
all this pother were to be for ccnivents and monas-

teries to be declared feral and entit-lect to hold what-
ever property im left to them.

MINISTERS must be a good deal more sanguine
than journalists with respect to the work of the
session. With the fourth clause of the Land Bill
still unsettled, with the Education Bill untouched so
far as committee goes, they yet see their way to
introduce new measure& The second week
of May will witness the Marquis of Hartington
introducing the Ballot Bill, and Lord Kim.
berley the Ecclesiastical Titles Bill. True, Mr.
Bruce has finally determined to postpone his Licensing
Bill till next session. On the other hand, Sir John
Coleridge has been more fortunate with his Univer.
sity Tests' Bill, and there is little doubt but that this
measure will reach the Upper House in time
for peers to consider well before they take
the important step of rejecting it. The
Mines Regulation Bill is where it was; that is to
say, read a second time, but nothing more. The
Merchant Shipping Bill, with its more than 800
clauses, has not advanced even so far as that. The
estimates are terribly in arrears. We question,
therefore, very much the wisdom of introducing
during the present session any measure for altering
the law of Parliamentary elections. This is not a
measure which could well have been introduced
in the first instance in the Upper House ; but if it was
determined to bring it on at all this year, other
measures, such as the Mines and Shipping
bills, should have been offered to the consideration of
the peers during all these weeks when they have
been nearly idle. After all there are some good men
of business among the Lords, and so long as we
tiave two logisiative chambers it is not wise to
show so little confidence in the wisdom of the
Upper, PS is s!o by the withholding of all
important measures until they have first been
83ttle1 by the Lower House. The result is a most
unfair pressure upon the Peers at the end of the
session, a pressure which renders wise and careful
'egis!ation on their nru•ts