The Sun.
London, England, 1844-08-23 00:00:00

SPIRIT of the PUBLIC JOURNALS.

FROM THE EVENING PAPERS OF YESTERDAY.

GLOBE.—If the French Ministerial journals are
to be believed, the affair of Otaheite is to be
arranged between the two Governments by the sacri-
fice of Mr. Pritchard. This gentleman is to be
treated as the scapegoat, on whose head the violent
proceedings of the French authorities is to be con-
fessed as unjustifiable in exitent ; but as provoked
by alleged indiscretions on his part, by which he
had excited the jealousy of the watchful French "Pro-
tectorate,' and induced the treatment of which the
English Government, whose minister he was, has very
properly complained, and required explanation. The
Paris Globe states, as an established fact, that which
is not merely unsupported by a tittle of evidence, but
has been expressly contradicted by distinct testi-
mony :—" Have the French authorities been guilty
of any wrong ? If so, England has a right to
demand reparation, • and France should not
hesitate to grant it ; for it is only by
avowing our wrongs that we can maintain
our rights. Now, it is evident and proved that the
French authorities had a right to arrest Mr. Pritchard,
and deport him, because of his exciting disturbances,
and neither the English nor any Government can
deny the legality of such an act. There was, how-
ever, on the part of a French officer, an abuse
of force and an inexcusable prveeding—a fact
which may and ought to be ackAtivledged. No-
body can find fault with the English Govern-
ment for demanding that that proceeding and
gratuitous violence be censured, and no man of
sense can condemn the French Government for ac-
quiescing in that demand." The Presse (also a Mi-
nisterial journal) follows in the same track ; and,
upon the faith of a letter in an English journal, for-
mally accuses Mr. Pritchard of having been " the in-
stigator and exciter of all the disturbances which
broke out in the island (of Otaheite)." Such a mode
of settling the differences between the two Govern.
ments might be, doubtless, very convenient to the
apathetic Minister who dreams over the Foreign de•
partment in Downing-street. Lord Aberdeen, it is
supposed, will say :—" If you, M. Guizot, will re
move M. D'Aubigny from Otaheite, and pass a slight
censure upon him for his indiscreet zeal in imprison•
ing Mr. Pritchard, our Consul, we (the Britisl
Government) will admit—without questianing the
grounds of the imputation—that Mr. Pritchard dii;
not act qUite prudently in the very delicate circum-
stances in which he was placed. M. D'Aubigny is of com-
paratively trifling importance to you, when compared
with the embarrassments which are thickening around
your heads, as a Ministry. As for us, we are a peace-
loving Cabinet—l am, emphatically, pacific. We
would deliver over a thousand Pritchards to con-
tumely, censure, disgrace, and ruin, could we do so
with safety to our position as a Government, and
diminish the difficulties which surrounded our policy,
by pitching them out of our way. All things will
now proceed smoothly. The dignity of the great
nation, of which you are th Minister, will be
maintained ; and the English people, less romantic
in their notions, will be easily reconciled to
the means,'so that we can but prevent the threatened
visitation of war." Now, this may appear to Lord
Aberdeen a very easy, if not a very dignified,
mode of getting out of the difficulties created by
the proceedings of the French subordinate autho-
triies at Otaheite. But, however his Lord-
ship may view the matter, we do not anticipate
the acquiescence of the British people in such a com-
promise; nor do we think that the House of Com-
mons is so perfectly subjugated as to permit such
an arrangement to pass unquestioned, and its base
truckling to French prejudices and passions to pass
unexposed. If there be proof that Mr. Pritchard has
acted improperly or indiscreetly, let it be adduced ;
and let the French authorities at Otaheite derive every
fair advantage, in the way of extenuating their insult
to his office, and their violence to his person, which such
proved impropriety of conduct can supply. But these
assumed errors, or faults, in Mr. Pritchard's conduct,
must be specified and established by proof. The mere
after-thoughts of his ruffian-like assailants must not
be received against him as ascertained facts. Nor must
Ministerial convenience be regarded in comparison
with the claims of personal rights and national honour.
The Duke of 'Wellington and the Earl of Aberdeen, in
the House of Lords, an :I Sir Robert Peel in the House
of Commons, speaking on this very subject, have borne
testimony to Mr. Pritchard's personal virtues and
public merits. These testimonials were not delivered
in a corner, but in the face of the British Parliament
and nation. They are on record ; and cannot be de-
stroyed or removed by French slanders, even though
they be grounded on anonymous or obscure libellers
of his reputation in this country. The desire which
prevails in France to exhibit Mr. Pritchard as un-
worthy of public regard, and thus to induce English
acquiescence in the treatment he has received, is ma-
nifested by the statements which were industriously
put forth by the French press, and circulated by
means of some journals in this country, that a Mr.
Pritchard, who had been guilty of some improprieties
at Caen, in Normandy, is the same Mr. Pritchard
whose treatment at Otaheite has provoked public
resentment in this country, and induced the English
Government to require explanation and reparation
from that of France.
STANDARD.—We have been favoured by
Messrs. Gabriel Kennard, Thomas Cull, and Edmond
Post, with copies of a series of letters which have
passed between these gentlemen and the Archbishop
of Canterbury upon the subject of the unhappy dis-
putes that have lately distracted the parish of East
Farleigh. The gentlemen who have sent us this
correspondence wish us to make it public ;
but this is a step upon which we crave
time for deliberation. There certainly is nothing
in the letters of Messrs. Kennard, Cull, and
Post, of which we do not entirely approve, and
which does not, in our judgment, reflect high
honour upon the writers. Nevertheless, they and
all reasonable men will agree with us, that parties in
their position may say things, and if they are sincere
will say them strongly and bitterly, in a remonstrance
to their diocesan, which it might be inconvenient and
mischievous to publish in a newspaper; there is in
our opinion something answering this description in
the third letter of the correspondence, which though
very proper for the attention of the Metropolitan, would
hardly bear the press. Meanwhile, it is impossible
not to admire the whole conduct pursued by the dis-
satisfied—in our opinion most justly dissatisfied—
parishioners of East Farleigh. They have with-
drawn from the ministrations of the clergyman who,
by his innovations, his religious millinery, and reli-
gious dramaticism, and by his Tractarian doctrines,
showed a disposition to convert a Protestant pa-
rochial temple into a Romanist mass-house ; they
have turned their backs upon his candlesticks and
his chanting, and his distillations from Doctor
Pusey's defence of transubstantiation; but they
have not turned their backs upon the Church,
faithfully attending the services of an adjoining
parish church, where the doctrines of the Church of
England are decently and faithfully inculcated.
It would appear from the correspondence before
us, that the candlesticks have been removed (as it
is supposed, upon a suggestion of the Archbishop) but
that the chanting is continued, and that the Trac-
tarian doctrines are still promulgated from the
pulpit, with this extraordinary sanction from the
Archdeacon, that the laity not being qualified to
understand the doctrines of the minister, have no-
thing to do with these doctrines but to accept them
implicitly. Now, of the three innovations complained
of, the only one removed (the candlesticks) would ap-
pear t) most reasonable persons incomparably the
least offensive. For chanting in a parish church
there is no excuse whatever ; the practice, which
in our time, it is not easy to reconcile any-
where with thb decent and unaffected gravity of
religious worship, had its origin in the necessity
of sustaining the human voice by an artificial disci-
pline and distribution of its power, so as to fill large
buildings which the ordinary speaking voice could
not fill. There was to choose between shouting and
semi-singing; and in those simple times, when
mobbing was more frequent, and the opera
not quite familiar, the semi-singing was thought
to have less tendency to desecrate the solemn

prayers of the Church Phan mere shouting. We are
not quite sure that the reverse is not the case at
present. In parish churches, however, chanting was
never necessary, because parish churches are rarely,
if ever, too large for the articulately delivered hu-
man voice, and as chanting in parish churches is
unnecessary, so is it improper. Every one is ex-
pected to attend, and ought to attend his parish
dhurch ; but every one is not affected in the
same way by music, or by the unnatural tones
employed in chanting. We know that, of all people
on the face of the earth, musical people are the
most incredulous of the existence of any unlike
themselves, the most intolerant of any impeachment
of the universality of the influence of that which
influences them. Nevertheless, it is very certain
that a great many reasonable (and, the question
here), responsible creatures are as little affected
by musical notes as blind men are by colours, and
upon such the unnatural tones of the chant and the

something like grimace by which it is accompanied,
have an influence the very reverse of edifying; at the
most innocent, it wearies them. What right, then,
has a clergyman to impose this hardship upon it may
be one half, but call it but a twentieth of his congre-
gation ? They wish to attend their parish church ;
why are they to be annoyed in it, or driven from it ?
It will not be denied that our noble Liturgy, read
distinctly, feelingly, and unaffectedly, is the perfect
fulfilment of the great requisite of worship—" prayer
with the spirit, and prayer with the understanding
also." Now, in this worship every one, by Divine grace,
is able to join, whatever his defect of musical ear;
and surely this ought
.to be enough for the service.
The clergyman and
Ins family, perhaps, delight in
music—let them enjoy it at home, or at any friend's
who delights in it 11150 ; but let not a clergyman incur