The Sun.
London, England, 1869-11-06 00:00:00

That Dr. Temple's nomination should find apologists
and even advocates, among some who are careful to dis-
claim his sentiments, is not, says the John Bull, so greatly
to be wondered at as might be thought. It is vastly more
pleasant—not to say profitable—to defend than to oppose
the Royal prerogative, especially with a Premier firmly
seated in office, and so resentful of opposition as actually
to thank Mr. Daniel Moore for declining to act with his
own tried friend, Dr. Pusey! Then again, Mr. Gladstone
and his nominee are both men who inspire warm personal
attachments, and it is as natural for friendship to wear rose-
coloured spectacles, as for envy and hatred to see every-
thing at the worst. No one indeed imputes personal ran-
cour to those who have felt called on to denounce Dr.
Temple's complicity with heresy ; but his champions confess
to stifling their dislike of his sentiments in their regard for
the man. Unable to find a verdict of "Not guilty," they
take refuge in the Scotch distinction " Not proven."
Even for this, however, these ardent friends are obliged to
shirk the terms of the indictment. All they can say is
that Dr. Temple is not proved to share the outspoken
heresies of other writers in the same volume. He may do
so, or he may not. Eminent and impartial divines find too
much ground for suspicion in his own language. They
hesitate to call him a heretic, because, for aught they know,
Dr. Temple might prefer to admit an error. On the other
hand, his friends cannot deny the grounds for suspicion,
and are even more anxious for a disclaimer. In its absence
they coin the disclaimer themselves; they fall back on
their own inner consciences, and refuse to believe anything
so wrong of a man whom they love so much. After all,
we repeat, it is not Dr. Temple's personal faith, any more
than his personal appearance, or his administrative talent,
that constitutes the elenchus of the question. Let his!
personal faith be as unimpeachable as his friends assert it
to be, if he can encourage, or not earnestly rebuke, such
heresies in others as are contained in the volume which
opens with his essay, he ought not to be a bishop of the
Church of England.

The Spectator gazes into the inside of the Roman con-
troversy with a mixture of fascination and fear,—fascina-
tion because the culmination of so long and stately a
process of historical development as that of the Roman
Church in this battle which is now waging as to the true
centre of infallibility, is one which cannot but fascinate any
mind capable of comprehending it, while the very refine-
ments of the discussion—the " infinitely little" extremities
into which the infinitely great issue tends to branch and
blossom—have a special attractiveness of their own ;—fear
because there is a peculitr terror to our minds in the un-
speakable confusion of the historical details over which this
great Catholic controversy as to the very title-deeds of the
faith of so many millions spreads itself. We confess that,
weighing the two parties in the scales in the best way we poor
" externs" can, our sympathy does not, on the whole, lean
to the Laodiceans, or " liberal" Catholics, so ably, if some-
what onesidedly, represented by Janus. We are perfectly
aware that if Dr. Manning and his party carry the Council
with him, as we suspect they will, and if England should
ever again fall politically under the influence of the
Pope, we should probably have to endure for the good of
our souls a great deal of that painful discipline which the
Popes have so often advocated, as in the Bull in Ccen.
Domini for instance, and which is more or less clearly
implied as proper for the Church to use in many of the
propositions of the Syllabus. Certainly the Spectator in
its present form would hardly long survive such a regime.
On the other hand, it is quite conceivable that if the party
of Janus carry the Council with them, and were to carry
that great reform of the Church which they propose, and
which is to reform completely away some twelve or thir-
teen centuries of its history at least—England might then
be reconverted to Roman Catholicism, without quite so
much fear of a new Holy Inquisition, and anew campaign
against modern civilisation. We expect the Papal party
to win because it is the logical party, the party in the
direct line of doctrinal succession to the principles which
have gained ground from year to year and century to
century. We rather hope it may win, because if it does we
shall be at the beginning of the end. A teacher accepted
as infallible with millions hanging on his words, will speak
and act in a way which can hardly fail of coming into
direct conflict with the voice and will of God. If that
does not couch the eyes of the faithful, certainly a further
disappointment and a longer delay would not do
so,—would only add to the fervour of their hope and
zeal.

The Economist observes that as far as respects thefuture,
money is likely to grow dearer for the present rather than
to grow cheaper. The margin of spare money on which
we are living is small, and if there is any extra demand
the price must at once rise. All foreign Governments are
anxious to borrow from us as much as we will lend, and
perhaps there is quite a sufficient inclination to lend to
them. The savings of the country, which after 1866 were
so long hardlyperceptible,are now perhaps again beginning
to seek investment. We believe that there are many
small middle-class people who have saved each a little,
who want to invest it, who dislike the low rate of the
funds, who are frightened at " limited companies,"
and who are "inquiring" about foreign stocks. In
these at any rate you know how much you
will lose, but in limited liability companies you
hardly do, at least hardly did. Before 1866
the uncalled capital on the shares was almost always so
large that any large investment of money was accompanied
of necessity by a large further liability. But in foreign
funds the whole subscription is at once called up, and you
know, therefore, how you stand, for good or for evil. But
foreign loans produce a quicker effect on our rate of
interest than an equal investment on home limited com-
panies. Foreign loans are apt at once to diminish our
bullion, while limited companies only tell on our capital,
and as we rarely have more bullion than we ought to have,
a diminution of bullion at once causes an increase in our
rate of discount. For these reasons we think the ten-
dency for some little time will be towards dearer money
rather than to cheaper. But there is no chance of really
dear money now or for a long time. The accumulation of
bullion in the Bank of France is far too great to allow it
to be possible ; some of that bullion would soon come here
if we were to give it much temptation.
The Saturday Review thinks that a most fatal blow was
aimed, and aimed successfully, at all recognised principle,
of law and order when, on the suggestion of Mr. Bright
Mr. Beaks led a ragged army of proletaires against the
railings of Hyde Park. No one but a bitter partisan could
observe, or can now remember, without pain, the attitude
which it pleased Mr. Gladstone to assume on that occasion
Since then he has drunk deeply of the cup of popularity,
without yet tasting it 3 bitters. But he must boar in mine
that he is something snore than a popular member of
Parliament and a powerful speaker. He is the Queen's
responsible First Minister. There have been epochs in the
history of England when she was on the point of yielding tc
the domination of mobs more angry and infuriate than those
which slow play at insurrection in Hyde Park ; and in 4
former generation the sack of half London attested the
weakness of the Ministers of the day. At the present da3
there is as much need as ever for that firmness which was
fatally wanting in 1780. The deference to law is visibl3
diminished everywhere. London and Birmingham are less
safe from the threats and violence of the rabble that
similar towns in any civilised country of the Continent
People ask, How long is this state of things to continue I
How long is anarchy to be endured and almost encouraged
by thuQue.cn's Ministers ?