The Sun.
London, England, 1860-07-26 00:00:00

charitable view, as the judge observed, would of
course be that, under the influence of a disordered
imagination, Mr. PRINCE really took himself to be
the supernatural person he professed to be, though
he hinted that such a lenient view of the case was
barely possible. The striking point is, the union
of these supernatural imaginations with certain
very earthly and natural applications of them—
money for fitting up a grand mansion, with all
the desirable adjuncts of horses, carriages, and
grounds, being the chief one. The marriages were
dictated, notwithstanding expressed feminine re-
pugnance at the indecent haste, to men who
handed over to him, according to his own state-
ment, between £5,000 and £6,000 each ; and when
he wanted a cheque for £5O of the unmarried one, it
was sent for with no other reason than "the LORD
hath need of £5O to be used for a special purpose
for His glory. The Spirit would have made it known
to you—amen !" With those of us who are accus-
tomed to obtain money of others only for value
' in some shape received, these transactions can have
but one interpretation. To us the whole thing will
look worse than the deed of old SIMON MAGUS, by
this—the ancient sorcerer was willing to pay
PETER a fair price for what he thought so useful a
gift as that of the HOLY GHOST. Mr. PRINCE, on
the contrary, uses his alleged possession of the
HOLY GHOST to make others pay him. PETER has
told us what we must think of the men who offer
money for the Divine gift—what would he have
said of the man who used it to get money.

It would really seem that in medicine and reli-
gion no absurdity is too great to gain credence, not
only from the ignorant but the educated also. We
see some of the freaks of this credulity in a horrible
way just now in Syria; we see it ludicrously at
St. George's-in-the-East and St. Barnabas, and
amongst the hundreds of young curates who strut
about with the belief, if we can really believe them,
that they themselves have a spice of the supernatural
in them—that they can do spiritual feats we will
not mention, because they are successors of the
Apostles ; and there are laymen—and, still
more, lay-women—who can swallow all this.
Fortunately, however, these clerical superna-
turalists are almost, without exception,
gentlemen, and they would:not abuse their preten-
sions, and practise on their disciples beyond fair
religious mendicancy. It is, however, well that
the law should strongly sustain this feeling amongst
our young Puseyite clergy. It is a great safe-
guard against belief in possession of supernatural
powers tempting to their abuse, to know that law
will not tolerate it, if it touch that sacred charge of
the law—property. Let the fanatics, out of the
Church and in it, play what religious pranks they
please, it is matter for thankfulness that they must
at least play them within the Vice-Chancellor's
law.

The Quarterly Reviewer appears to be incor-
rigible. Convince some one against his will, and
(the rhyming aphorism tells us) he's of the same
opinion still. It is thus with the reviewer referred
to. He contributes to the close of the current
number (215) of the Quarterly an exceedingly
brilliant, occasionally witty, frequently perverse
political argument, entitled the " Conservative
Reaction," in which he insists upon adhering to his
previously avowed estimate of the right hon.
gentleman the leader of the great Conservative party
in the House of Commons. The uncompromising
tone in which he does this will be agreeable enough
to all—except the Conservatives themselves. And
certainly it is very amusing to find the old
Tory Quarterly innocently blurting out the
admission that it assumes to be no more than
the mouthpiece of a mere section of the party
whose interests it has for years past affected
to advocate ! Contrasting the frankness of
the outspeaking of the great Liberal organs
with the constrained reticence hitherto character-
ising the chief mouthpiece of the Conservatives, the
writer here remarks very naively (p. 291),
" The result is that the Liberal leaders always
know from independent testimony exactly what all
sections (!) of their followers are thinking—a species
of information which only bursts at fitful and
stray intervals upon the minds of their Conserva-
tive opponents." The inference is obvious--the
deduction is altogether uamistakeaole. What one
at least of the Conservative sections has been think-
ing in regard to Mr. DISRAELI, the Quarterly has
of late modestly undertaken to enunciate.
"That it is the merest section of the great
party of the Conservatives, the conduct of that
party in the House of Commons has indicated
pretty plainly of late to the discomfiture and abso-
lute isolation of such malcontents as the hon. gen-
tleman the member for West Norfolk, or as the
noble lord the member for the borough of Stam-
ford. How much higher the ground assumed by
MAGA ! How much larger the pretensions of that
great monthly organ of the Conservatives ! Black-
wood affecting not simply to represent a section
of the party, but THE PARTY itself. After these
two decidedly false steps on the part of the
Quarterly, the last mentioned publication must cer-
tainly moderate its tone somewhat. Ridiculous
though it may sound to speak of it thus, it is
nevertheless true that henceforth (politically) this
BOANERGES must sing small ! The Quarterly hav-
ing wilfully and wantonly resigned its old accus-
tomed right to speak in the name and on behalf
of the great party of the Conservatives, undertakes
to do no more nowadays than become the vent for
the petty personal spleen of the Lord ROBERT CECIL,
or of some other equally impetuous and injured
individual.

It cannot but be admitted, in spite of this de-
clension in the dignity of the old Tory Quarterly,
that the political arguments here advanced in support
of the views of one peculiar section of the Conser-
vatives are flavoured with a spice of satire that
can hardly fail to render them very widely palat-
able. The Conservative leader himself is spoken
of by the Reviewer more in sorrow than in anger.
It is not in referents to him or to his entourage that
the satirical portions of the argument have, even by
implication, any reference whatever. It is to the
hon. member for Birmingham, above all, that the
words winged with wit fly home truly as to
the bull's eye of a favourite butt. Scorn
almost amounting to abhorrence is expressed
by the reviewer in regard to the right hon.
the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Derision is
everywhere blurted out in the direction of that un-
adorned diplomatist who has been ashamed to show
his face during this present session, even for one
brief interval, in the House of Commons. But
whenever the writer has occasion to refer
to Mr. BRIGHT he does so invariably in the
highest spirits, in the gayest good humour—
as if conscious (as in very truth he has ex-
cellent reason to be) that to Mr. BRIGHT
is mainly attributable this unusually resus-
citation of Conservatism. " Probably," quoth
the reviewer, at one moment, " Probably the
continuance of the reaction which has already
rescued the Paper Duty and the Church Rate, and
has given a good account of the Reform Bill, will
depend entirely upon the continuance of his salu-
tary exertions. It is very nearly all his doing, and
he deserves the chief credit of its wonderful rapi-
dity. It is no small success to have won for a