The Sun.
London, England, 1861-03-20 00:00:00

Commence at 7.'

I.IOY A 1., PRINCES S'S THEATRE.—
, Lessee and Manager, Mr. A. Harris.
THIS EVENING, THRICE MARRIED.
After which, HAMLET. Hamlet, Mr. Fechte
th r. Messrs.
Graham, Meadows, Arc. ; Misses Heath, Elswory, &C.

A DELPHI, NEW THEATRE-ROYAL.
Mr. Beni. Webster.
-TA Sole Proprietor and Manager,
THIS EVENING, AN UGLY CTJSTO-liIER. Messrs. J.
d Warde ; Miss K. Kelly, and Miss E.
L. Toole, C. Selby, an
Thorne.
After which, THE COLLEEN 'SAWN. D. lioucicault, D.
Nigher, liilling, Falconer, Stephenson, C. J. Smith, Romer.
Miss Agnes ton, Miss Woolgar, Mrs. Billington, and
Robertson,
Mrs. Chatterley.
To conclude with a new Burlesque Extravaganza, entitled
151.1jE BEARD FROM A NEW POINT OF HUE.
"dews. J. L. Toole, P. Bedford, C. J. Smith ; Miss Woolgar,
Kelly, Laidlaw, and E. Thorne.
Doors open at half past B—Commence at 7.
Box-office open from 10 till 5.
No charge for booking.
Private boxes, .£2 28. ; Family Boxes, £l.
orchestra Stalls, ss. ; Balcony, 4s. ; Front Circle Stalls, is.
rit Stalls, 25.; Pit, Is. 6d. ; Amphitheatre,•ls ; Gallery,id!
Acting Manager—Mr. Win. Smith.

CANTERBURY-HALL CONCERTS!!!
Westminster-road.
Proprietor ........C. Morton.
A Grand Selection from Verdi's new Opera, •
IL CORSARO,
(This opera has never been produced in this or any other
country, except at these Concerts). having met with that de-
cided success which charactise • the most popular works of
his great Master, will be performed EVERY EVENING ;
together with a Selection from LA FIGLIA DEL REGGI-
MENTO, by Donizetti,
Principal Artistes—Miss Russell, Madame Maria, Miss
Tyrrell, Mr. 11. Herbert, Signor Tivoli, H. Drummond, and
C. W. Bernard. Director, Mr. F. Jonghemssrs.ansE. Marshall, A.
The Comic Department comprises M
B. Hollingsworth, J. Blanchard, F. Bell, W. H. Welland, and
the Brothers Conrad.
John Martin's Three celebrated Pictures will remain on
view a short time longer in the Fine Arts Gallery of the
Establishment.

- -
BIGII WATER AT LONDON BRIDGE.
Tom DAT.—Morning, 7h. 9m.—Afternoon, 7h. 38m,
To-uoitso-w.-Morning, Bh. 17m.—Afternoon, 9h. 6m,

THE WEATHER.—Strx OFFICE, MARcH 20,11861.

THERMONETBIL, IN THE SHAMS.
48—highest since noon yesterday.
36—lowest this morning and duping the night.
46—this day at nowt. _ _

BAROMETER-29.65.
WIND—South-Westerly—fresh; with dull rainy weather,
gather fine in the morning.

...
, 0.4)k4-144‘ 4
t-ic-;,,
, , ~, • n 0 .
f'-_;,- i,.7.10.,* •
~..7;,...

THE SUN.

LONDON, WE-DNESDAY, MARCH 20, 1881

The Lords have got hold now of one argument
which is to serve for all occasions when measures
having the slightest bearing on Religious Liberty,
or Religious Equality, are brought before them.
It is nothing more nor less than this,—" Dissenters
really aim at upsetting the Established Church."
The merits of the measure are quite an unimportant
consideration. It might be a clear advantage to
the Church, a diminution of friction, a removal of
causes of ill-will, a liberation from fetters—that is
all nothing to the purpose. If Dissenters are
among the prominent persons who support the
measure, it must be thrown out. To pass it would
be to acknowledge that Dissenters have power, to
relieve them from something they consider a badge of
inferiority,would tempt them on to demand equality
of rank, privileges, and perhaps at last even of pay.
Dissenters must be taught by every method
that they are but Dissenters—that the lords of
England represent the supremacy of the Church,
and that Dissenters must patiently bear the pre-
scribed mark of inferiority, just as the Jews of
Venice were once required to wear a yellow head-
dress.
Last night Lord CHELMSFORD, avowedly from
reasons of this kind, which we have not caricatured,
moved the rejection of the Offices Qualification Bill
—a bill which has twice passed the Commons with
hardly anything to be called opposition. The object
is simply the repeal of a declaration to be made by
persons taking municipal office and certain high
offices in the State, that they will do nothing
in virtue of their office to injure the Church of
England. It was explicitly designed by Sir R.
:PEEL as a mark, as he expressed it, of the
predominancy of the Church of England. It was
wonderful that a statesman of his strong sense
should not perceive the utter futility of such a
declaration. Any Dissenter, who intended us
_Mayor to preside at a meeting against Church-
rates, or for the severance of the Church from the
State itself, could easily allege that he regarded
both measures as a decided advantage to the Church
of England. We imagine there are a great many
Churchmen just now who would exceedingly like,
'saving of course all the revenues, to be released
from the control of Premiers, and Parliament, and
Ecclesiastical law in its present form. Chum
rates, the Vicar of Frome, and other clergy
men too, have shown to be a positive injury
to the Church, and thus on two grea

points much discussed at the present
day, a Dissenting Mayor might actually, with
clergymen as his supporters, in virtue of his office,
do all he could to promote what Lord CHELMS-
FORD would bold to be great injuries to the Church
of England, if not its destruction. The Dissenter
would say that he did it all quite consistently with
his declaration.
To Churchmen, of course, like Lord CHELMs-
WORD and Lord DERBY, both of whom said they
lad made the declaration, it is entirely superfluous.
It is equally so to men who are indifferent to all
religion, and to those who pay no attention to
formalities of such a kind. The only case
in which it could take effect would be in that of a
'very scrupulous Dissenter, who was also a warm
lanti-State Churchman. Such partisans of a cause
are, however, rarely amongst the most scrupulous
of men, they would simply laugh at the declaration,
and interpret it to their mind—and as for over-
scrupulous men, not partisans—they, of course,
'would not be the men to damage anything, except
13Y inaction, while their consciences were deciding
CUPS pf
casuistry which never trouble practical
men.

But, seriously, does the House of Lords really
intend to carry out this foolish policy of point-
ing to the opinions of the advocates of a
:measure, instead of adoptingt the business-like
course of considering measure itself, and
dealing with it according to its real cha-
racter ? What on earth are the views and
intentions of persons to legislators, except they
proceed to acts ? Arc we really about to legislate
like inquisitors, to ascertain the faith of men,not to
lookto their works, and thus to punish mere opinion.
The opinion against State Churches is as reasonable
as the opinion for them. We know nothing
of either in legislation. Let the proposal come
to abolish the State Church, and it could then be