The Sun.
London, England, 1861-11-25 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, IVIONDAY EVENING, NOVEMBER 25, 1861.

from committing the gross breach of discipline of which
they have been guilty."

We do not deny that the sentence was just, as far
as military law goes, but the complaints were not
trivial; the men required shortly to hold authority
over others, and, as the case might be, to have the
lives of those under them dependent upon their
judgment and general knowledge, have been treated
like schoolboys, and required to pay £l2O a-year
for the accommodation of a play-ground and the
fare of a boarding-school, for which the charge
would in private life be some £3O or £4O per annum.
It is not, of course, to be expected that any national
institution, although supported by the country, can
with all its sinecures and private emoluments require
less than double the fee which would satisfy private
firms. But on paying such a sum a man would
necessarily expect to be treated like gentleman, and
not restricted to the number of clean shirts he may
wear during the week, or be bound by regulations
concocted during the last century. At the Cambridge
University there are ancient laws still unrepealed,
but which, of course, are null and void—one of
which we believes enacts that any person in statu
pupilari shall be flogged if found playing at
marbles on the steps of the Senate House.
The University ignores such antiquated absurdity
when it has to deal with men ; but the
War-office, five centuries behind the age,
cannot forego a little bit of petty tyranny. We
are glad that this little episode has taken place;
although, as is too often the case, those to whom the
exposure is due suffer for their boldness in vindi-
cating their rights. They have played their part
and it now remains with the public to see that
justice is done in future, and that the Royal Mili-
tary Academy at Woolwich shall henceforth be
conducted in a manner worthy of the country which
supports it, and of the talented younggentlemen who
after long study, and passing successful examina-
tions, require to be treated as officers and gentle-
men. It is in the power of the Duke of CAM-
BRIDGE to follow up his reproof by astrict investiga-
tion into the mismanagement of the academy, and,
by bringing common sense to bear upon the ques-
tion, maintain the high name which he has hitherto
held for justice, moderation, and the interests of
he nation.

English readers are indebted to Mr. BENTLEY for
providing them with a kind of literary curiosity,
M. GUIZOT'S advocacy of the temporal power of the
POPE with his condemnation of VICTOR EMMAUEL
and CANOUR for their proceedings in Italy.* Sir G.
BOWYER will have quite a new text next session,
and Lord NORMANBY will perhaps move that a
copy of the work be laid on the table of the House
of Lords.

The clever Orleanist Mioister opens his trenches
at safe distance. He tells us that the work owes its
appearance to a speech in April last for which many
Protestants blamed him, and many Catholics praised
him highly, in which his language asserted, though
in the most general language, that when any of the
leading churches suffered, and by implication the
Romish Church, all churches felt the blow. As it
has not been supposed hitherto, that Rome suffered
from attacks on Protestantism, or Protestantism
from the misfortunes of the Papacy, we cannot
wonder that his language seemed rather singular,
and that fuller explanation was called for. Hence
a duodecimo of two hundred pages. M. GUIZOT is
a true Catholic. He includes all sections of the
Christian world under the term church. He is a
Protestant from conviction, and regards Protestant-
ism as having impressed on Christian Society a deci-
sive movement towards liberty, as well as reanimated
the Christian faith. He regards the decision as to
what is or is not truth, as not intrusted to man ;
variety of convictions is his conditioa, diversity of
liberty is his right, " the human race," he says, " is

devoted to toil and struggle in the search after
truth, not destined to repose in the bosom of truth."
The real dangers of all the Churches he considers to
be the attacks of Materalists, Pantheists, Ration-
alists, historical critics and sceptics, each in their
own way ; but all these attacks are charac-
terised by one common feature, " A denial
of the supernatural in the destinies of man: and of
the world, and the abolition of the miraculous ele-
ment in the Christian religion ;" while he holds that
on our " innate instinct of the supernatural all
religion is founded." He says, indeed, " There is
no such thing as natural religion ; as soon as you
abolish the supernatural, religion also disappears."
All the gods ever worshipped he resolves into
two—those which were deifications of humanity—
the idols of paganism, including those of modern logic
and metaphysics ; and the independent self-existent
GOD of the Bible and Christianity. On the latter
conception of a god rests the Church, and for this
Church he cIaims—LIBERTY. His notion of li-

berty is, however, far balow that which is becoming
the current one in England. He allows liberty of
thought, of conscience, of life, of believing or not
believing ; with the right, as regards individuals,
of professing their faith and exercising their wor-
ship, of choosing what association they will join,
and as regards churches, of self-organisation and
government ; with the right of teaching, convert-
ing, and propagating their faith. The Frenchman,
however, says nothing of Religious EQUALITY.
He is a strenuous advocate of the alliance between
the Church and the State. Separate they each
suffer—the State becomes too material, the Church
too dogmatic. " Civil order loses sanction, and

religious order declines in dignity and stability."
The right of dissent must be, however, fully recog-
nised, and its existence he thinks advantageous to
the State churches.

M. GUIZOT now approaches what appears to be
the object of his book, to uphold the temporal
power of the POPE, as a part and parcel of the

liberties of the Roman Catholic Church. He first
shows that Protestantism, since the arrangements
with the first NAPOLEON, has not obtained its full
freedom ; the churches cannot assemble without
the authorisation of the Government, which may be
refused; nor can the Protestant Churches hold their
general synod. But what of the Catholic Church ?
Though in remote ages it has protected social pri-
vileges against despotism, yet when its own autho-
rity was in question it has unfortunately made
despotism its ally. But he thinks—vain hope,
alas, when Popery is in power—that Catholicism
might accept fully and openly the principle of reli-
gious liberty. Entire renunciation of all alliance
with absolutism and despotism would give it much
strength. This is true enough, yet immediately
our author proceeds to note the fact that the POPE,
the head of the Catholic religion, is at the same
time the spiritual Prince of ail Catholicism, and
the temporal Sovereig❑ of a small European State.
He, and Father PASSAGLIA who certainly ought to

know best, are at antipodes to each other. GUIZOT
accounts the double power to be a fact consecrated
by ages. PASSAGLIA argues that the purer ages of
1 the Papacy knew nothing of such a fact. History
is surely against the historian GulzoT, and with the
theologian PASSAGLIA. Upon this miserable basis
the ex. Protestant Minister builds his notion of
Catholic liberty ! To separate the temporal and
the spiritual is with him " striking a blow against
the religious liberty of the Catholics !" He terms
" the States of the Church" the possession of the

* The Christian Church and Society in 1861. By F
Unizot. London; Richard Bentley.