The Sun.
London, England, 1851-03-05 00:00:00

[PRICE SD.

the Protectionists, were treated as deliberate ex-
pressions of Parliamentary opinion against the
existing Administration. It was notorious that, for
the time, the official Whigs represented that party
in the House which most nearly resembled the working
majority of former days. But the casual resemblance of
a narrowly-matched division and an incidental defeat to
the great party struggles of the past, served as as ex-
cuse tor advertising the necessity of the actual Ministry
to the country, by successive displays of the compara-
tive weakness of all available rivals. It was hoped that
wavering adherents would be united by a semblance of a
defeat, a rally, and a recovery of office. In case of
failure in the prospect of an immediate return to power,
the same object might, it was imagined, be still more
effectually secured by cementing in Opposition the.ties
which had been loosened by the official indisposition of
a safe-seated Ministry to concur in the policy of their
more eager followers. The experiment has failed, not
from want of ingenuity in its contrivers, but because
they misapprehended the circumstances with which they
had to deal. The impossibility of stepping twice into
the same current has been a proverb ' from the days
of Htraclitus, and it is a mistake to identify the
present condition of politics even with experiences
so recent as the time of Lord Melbourne. Lord
John Russell returns, as he anticipated, to office—
but without an additional resource, and without a diffi-
culty the less. The impassive and intangible Opposi-
tion has become less definite and palpable than before,
from the inconvenient proof which it has afforded that at
present it cannot form a Government. The Ministry is
still protected by independent friends, who will, as they
have hitherto done, take the liberty of resisting its er-
rors; and the absence of direct hostilities will only weaken
still further the allegiance of wavering and dissatisfied
supporters. A Ministry of transition is a modern Freach
invention; and it will not succeed in England. Lord
John Russell must consider. his Administration as sub- '
stantial ancitermantint, if hi :Ott secure 'die assent of
Ilies*Peeitiet Thi
iiretWAAMlkilkisatairtranathasistaillirisiliiiireillehliisorArAftaii.a4l

necessary wall it bp to secure euppert by wise and useful
political and financial measures. All sections df the
House are ready to give a fair trial to a Government
placed in so peculiar a position; bat none will take its
measures on trust. A judicious Budget, and a well-con-
trived series of law reforms, including a measure re-
specting the Court of Chancery, might go far to oblite-
rate the memory of recent blumders and failures.
HERALD.—We may well leave the rival manifestoes
of Lord Stanley and Sir James Graham to produce
their natural effect upon the public mind. They will not
fail to do their work throughout the country. It is now
ascertained beyond a doubt that the followers of the late
Sir Robert Peel are committed to a Puseyite policy and
to every unhappy measure which such policy involves,
whilst the adherents of Lord Stanley are ready, for the
sake of the Throne and the institutions of the land, to
make every personal and party sacrifice consistently with
the maintenance of convictions under the influence of
which they have pursued their opposition to her Ma-
jesty's Government from the year 1846 until the present
hour. It is in no spirit of triumph or party rejoicing
that we receive from the lips of Lord Aberdeen and his
friends the melancholy announcement, that, happen
what may, they will be no parties to the vindication of
the Protestant character of the country; that they will
take no steps to put an end to treachery, however
flagrant, within the Church, and to aggression, how-
ever insolent and unjustifiable, from Rome. The
confession, coming from public men in whose
hands the destinies of the empire have already been, and
who still prefer their claim to office, is sufficiently dis-
astrous. But the other day and the union between
Conseriatism and Protestantism was complete. What-
ever the difference of opinion respecting the propriety
of tolerating the professors of a creed that glories in
nothing so much as its own intolerance, with respect to
the one vital point, of upholding the Protestant rights of
the people and of securing the foundations upon which
the Throne itself is based, unity of sentiment was per-
fect. We have waited until this moment to learn the
full extent of the disruption of 1846. Had every fol-
lower of Sir Robert Peel without exception consented
five years ago to the commercial legislation against
which they conscientiously protested, it would have been
impossible to continue the connexion now. The terms of
union between the two sections demand a renunciation of
principle and an acquiescence in a policy from which
Liberals themselves recoil in fear and trembling. The
disciples of Sir Robert Peel, revelling in apostacy, refuse to
co-operate with Lord John Russell, because the liberal
notions of the Whig Prime Minister do not degenerate
into licence. Lord John, with all his Whiggism, would
still vindicate the national faith. Sir James Graham
repudiates any religious supremacy whatsoever. The
former, tolerant enough in all conscience, would stand
between the Queen and a foreign priest, daring enough
to usurp her sacred rights: the latter knows no such
rights, and discerns no reason for Ministerial interpo-
sition. A Government might have been formed a week
ago—the Queen need not have been left one day in the
anxiety of her unparsllelcd position, bad the lieeraliim
of Sir James Graham been less wanton—had his en-
mity for Protestant institutions been less vehement and
decided. Let the people of England take cognizance of
the fact. If there is to be fusion of parties, the fusion
must be at the expense of the nation's faith. If we are
to have the great advantage of Sir James Graham's
public services, it must be at the sacrifice of all that
Lord John Russell has told us to be essential to the
nation's independence and the people's safety. We
know the price of the Peelite faction. Are we ready to
pay it? Are we ready to take the first great step in
the downward path that leads inevitably to moral,
social, end spiritual destruction? Let us not blind our
eyes to the fearful peril that surrounds us. Once con-
fess that we have neither power nor inclination to op-
pose the designs of Rome—designs that know no limit,
and take no account of difficulty or obstacle—that what-
ever may be the amount of the Pope's demands, and the
extent of popular resistance, yet no hand shall be put
forward by the Executive to check the advance of the
insolent intruder, and who shall define the bounds of
this country's great humiliation? With free hands,
God knows it is difficult enough to preserve spiritual
liberty in the presencaof an institution which acknow-
ledges no obligations that clash with the advancement
of its prime objects. Let our bands be fettered by our
rulers, who, in loyalty and duty, should rather arm and
strengthen them, and the glorious privileges of intel-
lect and soul, which it took ages to secure, and the
blood of the best men to hallow, are gone from that
hour. What shall save the country from the curse
of priestcraft when its governors proclaim the dismal
fact, that, against the insidious attempts of even a
foreign and an inimical priest, England has no remedy
and can demand no protection? Are we, with respect
to our own ecclesiastical governors, in so satisfactory a
state that such a statement can be put forth with safety?
Is it not evident that it but requires legislative sanction
to so fearful an announcement in order to stimulate once
more into disastrous action the avowed enemies of Pro-
testantism, who wait within the pale of the Church, eat-
ing of her substance and partaking of her blessings, only
the more effectually to betray her into the hands of that
very power which Sir James Graham and his friends
are sworn to defend in its most glaring and unwarrant-
able attacks against the liberty of the people and the
rights of the Crown? Can we invest the Pope of Rome
with authority and influence over British subjects, and
deny the same prerogatives to our own parish priests?
Can we abet Popery and disavow Puseyism? Dare we
sanction the audacious intrusion of Dr. Wiseman and put
limits to the priestly domination of Mr. Bennett?
The thing is impossible. Because it is impossible
the scandalous attempt to put down the Protestant
feeling of the nation is made by the Puseyite faction.
The greater crime includes the lesser; the patronage of
Pope Pius involves toleration and approval of innova-
tion at home and at our own doors. With this fact before
their eyes, let Englishmen accept the services of Sir
James Graham and his abettors if they will. They will
perpetrate the folly, at least, without reason for com-
plaint. Nothing can be plainer than the manisesto of
the Peelites. Whether they accept office as a party, or
in conjunction with the Whigs, they are for the Pope
abroad and for Puseyites at home. They condemn the
letter of Lord John Russell in all its parts. They will
, bring Rome hither, and they will carry us to Rome.
Protestantism, the sanctifying principle of their fathers,
is to them a fable. When Sir James Graham proposed
the Maynooth grant, he tells us that he looked forward
to this moment, and he rejoices that it has finally ar-
rived. The case for the nation to settle is not a difficult
one. Protestants of every church and sect will do
well to consider it whilst there is yet time. Aware
of the universal danger, we should take shame to
ourselves if we permitted considerations of a political
character to militate against the duty incumbent atitthe
a juncture upon every Protestant in the empir
entreat our fellow-subjects, whatever may
be
theira
strug-
litical prepossessions, to forget them "w' when
liberties
gle becomes inevitable for the reservation of _ y
b this
dearer to us far than our lives.
Popish aggression, if not to take What
use°when the souls of
the gloom and degradation of a.
in the hands of a priest-
men were mere objects of trafficeiir niecommore back to
hood careful for nothing own supremacy, and
the annihilation of intellectualshindependence? We be-
lieve and hope that during p
nations strong and fortunate
t willt be made to do violence to
events?, no rash attempt
what we know to be
Peelites may be to serve
convictions.
• federates, they are far too discreet to
their Puseyite con
upon their
Eager asthtehen
desperate undertaking until the
v-se,nnsteurvef the whole country is taken upon the point. Let
there
be no mistake when the hour for collecting
the nation's suffrag6s shall come. There may be doubts
and difficulties surroundieg questions of mere commer-
cial and political import. Upon the question of pre-
serving our national faith inviolate, Protestant men can-
not entertain two opinions. We may love toleration, and
yet cherish our own spiritual freedom. Even Free-
traders may net be anxicus to secure the favour of a
free-trade Government by the renunciation of their Pro-
testant institutions. Let the point by all means be as-
certained with all convenient speed. Lord Stanley has
wisely declined that if the next Parliament shall decide
against the financial and commercial policy which be
now holds to be essential to the well-being of the country,
he will at once acquiesce in its verdict, and protest no
longer against the measures of his political foes. If a
general election shall also pronounce in favour of Sir
James Graham—Popery and Puseyism—we shall be the
last to murmur egainet the verdict, however much we