The Sun.
London, England, 1851-03-27 00:00:00

and difficulty to the question. In truth the measure is
trifling in itself, though important as a symbol. But the
scope and reach of its actual penalties are so small that
it is really not worth discussing, and would not have
been seriously disputed had not the friends of the late
Sir Robert Peel made a mountain of the molehill,
and taken their party stand upon it, for the mere purpose
of showing how much more liberal and tolerant they
were than the Whigs. And yet such an appeal
as this to the Dissenters, and to the liberal
religionists, however adroitly made by such loose and
leading fishes of the party, as Sir J. Graham, is the
most profound of hypocrisies, coming from a band of
politicians the ablest of whom entertain notions of reli-
gion and of ecclesiastical government, the most opposite
of intolerance, of voluntaryism, and of free thoughted-
ness. National Popery, a worship to enthral the senses,
and a doctrine to exclude the reasoning faculty, a go-
vernment of the State by professional politicians, and of
the religious mind and church by professional priests—
these are the doctrines of the Young Peelites ; and from
these naturally flow respect, affection, and sympathy for
Rome. The most crafty and able of these Papistical
wolves in Protestant sheep's clothing, is undoubtedly
Mr. Gladstone. He commenced his speech on Tuesday by
admitting that the Church of England was in serious peril.
The peril was not, in Mr. Gladstone's opinion, aught that
temperal legislation could cure. From this we can only
infer that Mr. Gladstone wishes to re-establish convoca-
tion, and restore synodal action to the Church of Eng-
land, whilst he allows it to the Church of Rome in England.
We must say that this scheme is the most extraordinary
one for allaying religious excitementeihat-we have yet
heard. We can perfectly understand the American
system, which declares the State indifferent to religion
and a stranger to it, after hoving first passed education
laws, mortmain laws for personal and real property, and
taken every guarantee that can be required against
Rome. We can conceive the Americans caring little
for Roman Catholic titles or synodal action. But in
England, to uphold a State Church, and then encourage
rival churches to jostle and pelt at it, is not possible.
The Protestant Established Church must be either pro-
tected or abolished as a State Church. As to the Pro-
testant Church in Ireland, Mr. Gladstone abandons it,
by alleging, with his friend Sir John Young, that it is
such a ricketty concern that the least quarrel with or
provocation to the Roman Catholics of that country
would give them the pretext, which they want, in ad-
dition to the power, which they have, to destroy it.
For our part, we had always hoped, and do hope
still, that a fair accord may be come to between
Protestants and Catholics, that the limits between
them may be fixed, and the rules laid down, as they
are in all countries of mixed religion, how far each
may assume and claim authority. But this must be
done by law and by Parliament—by that temporal legis-
lation, in fact, which Mr. Gladstone deprecates, and
without which the Roman Catholics will go on assuming,
and the Protestants resenting, until we awake in the
midst of civil war, and that whilst politicians are
preaching a peace and a tolerance, incomprehensible to
any save themselves. Mr. Gladstone says, that to forbid
a Roman Catholic to style himself Archbishop of Can-
terbury is an interference with spiritual authority. This
he would not do for the world. But the forbidding Ro-
man Catholic prelates or churches from inheriting pro-
perty, that may be done, according to Mr. Gladstone,
without infringing spiritual liberty. It is a temporal
concern. Now this is a mere quibble, for we will be
bound to say that more serious persecution could be ex-
ercised against the Roman Catholics, and far more seri-
ous discontent excited amongst them by following out
tnis principle of Mr. Gladstone, than in observing that
delicacy of Lord John Russell, who inflicts the
lenient inhibition to assume territorial titles. Al-
though we have slight respect for those professional
politicians, who, though calling themselvs Tories,
affect to pooh pooh the Bill as inefficient, and at the
same time denounce it as persecution, it is with
fear and reluctance we differ from such liberals as Mr.
flume, in whose regret for the waking up of such a ques-
tion we fully concur. But we think Mr. Hume deci-
dedly wrong in throwing upon Government or upon the
Whig party the blame of having fteited this religious
feud. The very principle of the Whigs is, to keep cut
of such scrapes; their very instinct prompts theta to do
nothing in such matters, and we are cienfidentnirarif
Lord John Russell thought he could with safety and in
honour have done nothing,
.he would infinitely have pre-
ferred that course.. But unfortunately Cardinal Wise-
man and the'Pope left im no choice. \llia its pair
of worthies have dt‘i and have done, may arrears+
very little importance lk those unactuated by strong re-
ligious feelings, or ."‘l,' principles of liberty which
are bound up with these religious feelings,
such as English liberalism has, always been.
These form the very pulse of the nation, and to
suppose that it would not, or to say that it did not, beat
with indignation at the appointment of a cardinal to go-
vern our counties, is merely to shut one's eyes and ig-
nore the age. Considering that the cause of all this ex-
citement end offence came from the Roman Catholic
party in Rome;—considering that, far from
being denounced or disapproved, it was taken
up and abetted by the Catholics of Ire-
land ;—considering that the principle of the pre-
sent Bill already existed in the Act of
which was accepted with gratitude by the Irish Ca-
tholics;—considering how mild and tolerant th© Govern-
ment had shown itself in sanctioning great and national
ncroachments on the part of the Irish Catholics on the
limits of this Bill—we do think that when the Pope
so glaringly exceeded, and insolently stepped beyond
and ignored the concessions of that Bill, assuming of his
own autocratic power authority and dignity far beyond
it, and of course as far as it might in future please him
to make—we do think that the Government had a right
to expect no such uncomprising abettal of the Pope and
his acts from the Irish Catholics. We think the Pope
and them decidedly in the wrong, in the aggressive, and
on the offensive. Now, we should be very glad to
live at peace with the Pope; and it is still more
necessary to live in harmony and good understand-
ing with the Roman Catholic population. But there are
two parties to peace and good fellowship, as there are two
parties to every bargain in the world ; and if one side is
to make all the aggression and the other all the con-
cession, there is no possibility of lasting accord. For
let the Government or let Parliamentary parties be ever
co conciliatory—let them even be anile in their humility,
and allow themselves to be walked over by Roman Car-
dinals, the people of England and the Protestants of
England will be but the more excited, the more exigent,
the more impassioned fur this sheepishness of their
Government ; and when the people bring these causes
of complaint against their rulers, it is not the philosophy
of Mr. Hume, nor the sophistry of Mr. Gladstone, that
will appease them. If any statesman wants to kindle a
flame of Protestant fanaticism, he will begin by ignoring
end contemning the just grounds of complaint, which
moderate Protestants put forward, and for which they
demand moderate security and redress.
ADVERTISER.—We feel that we breathe more

freely. So, we are sure, must the nation. If we are
called on as a people to be thankful for small mercies,
we are bound to be doubly grateful for so great a bles-
sing as the termination of the anti-Papal debate. It is
melancholy to think that a whole fortnight of a session,
which has been so deplorably unproductive of practical
legislation, should have been wasted on a measure which,
were it to pass to-morrow, would not, as it now stands,
be worth the parchment on which it is written. The
onlyana codnessipdoetriac.tion
Rwehgiachrdiinngsomaiei dwegithreoeurtecohneerilepsaules to
as
a fortnight's debate on the Bill before the House, is,
that though it is, as it stands at present, a mere mockery
and a fraud upon the public, there is still ground for
hope that it may, before it passes through its final
stages, be so amended as that its provisions shall bear
some resemblance to its preamble. As it now stands,
it has no provisions at all of an operative nature. It has
a title, but nothing more. It professes to do a certain
thing, but does not provide the requisite machinery for
accomplishing the object which it professes to have in
view. Happily, however, it is in the power of the House,
when in Committee, to supply that which is lacking.
It is, indeed, the special province of the House, in
Committee, to add that which is necessary for rendering
a measure efficient, as well as to expunge that which is
calculated to prevent the beneficial operation of a Bill.
If, therefore, the friends of Protestantism—the upholders
of the prerogatives of the Crown—the supporters of the
cause of civil and religious liberty, are only true to
themselves and their principles, the measure may yet be
so altered and amended as to be, at least, to some extent
operative in checking the aggressions of Popery. As
the House in Committee has the power of thus remodel-
lingh the measure, and as Hon. Gentlemen know thattotr
_es
country loudly calls for it, and that the House of dwill give effect to any amendments they maymake,—we canbneot
cal-
culated to give greater stringency to the. i
doubt that before it comes oat of Committee it will
isa
oeplicesoreuaoeftrey°imf itm
very different measure from
the Bill ought
not for us to dictate in positive terms what.
what it is at present. It
the deep-seated feeling whichH
to be made; but we know that we ovndlyeegitvheeenxaptrieosnsaito
obnesnwotilml
made
meet the views and
bo-
som, when we say,
wthiltctshoef
th
it did not meet the necessities of the case. It
at least as rigorous as it was when. first introduced.
Even then
short of the requirements of the crisis which the
fell
lman Pontiff had, by his barefaced audacity and daring
assumptions, precipitated in the civil and religious his-
toryussump ,
. of the country. But though the measure, as it
originally stood, was not all that could be desired, still it
was scmething ; and had it been permitted to pass with-
out mutilation, it would have been worth accepting on
the part of the country. The Premier unhappily aban-
doned his principles, and all the better parts of the Bill,
at the same time. tie fancied ho could conciliate the
Romish Church by transforming the original measure
into one of a much milder character. In coming to such
a conclusion, the head of the Government betrayed an
ignorance of the principles of Popery which seems un-
accountable in any one bearing the name of Russell.
The martyrdom which some of the most illustrious of
his ancestors were doomed to suffer from Popish hands
would have sufficed, it might be supposed, to convince
the Noble Lord of the implacable character of the
Romish Church. That Church is not to be propitiated.
If she ever appears humble, gentle, and unaggressive, it
is only when she feels herself feeble—when she has not
the power for mischief. When in the ascendancy, Po-
pery has invariably proved itself arrogant, aggressive,
doomed to perdition, Rome accords toleration to none
who differ from her. Genuine Pepery is only to be seen