The Sun.
London, England, 1845-04-17 00:00:00

meat, and, failed in that attempt for Kant of popular
support. The history of the appropriation clause does
not furnish much ground for expecting that Protestantism
in Ireland can be made dependent on the voluntary sys-
tem. Is it wise, then, that Liberal Dissenters should
now aid the supporters of Protestant ascendancy in that
country, in withholding from Roman Catholics a slight
but welcome alleviation of the justice which they sus-
tain? Under the circumstance of the case, neutrality
would be wise and unbecoming. If they ever become
strong enough to enforce their principle, let them get
rid of Maynooth grant and Protestant establishment to-
gether ; but in the wean time let them not lend the
strength and moral influence of that principle to the
achievement of a most sectarian triumph for its greatest
foes. It is obvious that the defeat of the May-
'tooth grant, if it should be defeated, will not be a
triumph of the voluntary principle. It will be a
triumph of No-Popery passions and prejudices. The
victory may be one by the junction of two parties,
but the stronger of the two will absord the fruits of
the conquest. When Liberal Dissenters find themselves
following Sir Robert Inglis and Mr. Plumptre, and ad-
ding their voices to a No-Popery war-cry raised by
clergymen of the Establishment, they ought surely to
have some misgivings as to the course which they are
taking. It may be true that -Sir Robertrlnglis and his
friends are using suicidal arguments ; it may be true
that, in declaring it wrong to be obliged to pay for the
inculcation of doctrines from which we dissent, those
persons acknowledge a prineiple fatal to all State endow-
ments ; but after such arguments have served their tem-
porary purpose, of what value will they be ? Are tilt:),
not evidently taken up for the occasion, and will they
n-it be thrown aside with the same discreditable facility?
What if Dissenters, attracted by the voluntary principle
arguments of Sir Robert Inglis, should first enable him
to defeat the Maynooth grant, and then beg the very
small favour that he would embody his new views in a
Bill for the abolition of church-rates, would not the High
Church leader smile at their simplicity ? The present
agitation is, we repeat, a No-Popery agitation. No-
Popery is the burden of the speeches by which it is
carried on, and even some advocates of the voluntary
principle are so far carried away by religious excitement,
as to mix up that principle with appeals to sectarian and
unsocial feelings. We cannot but think that the excite-
ment of a No-Popery cry, however honestly engaged in,
involves at the present time a peculiarly deep respon-
sibility. Considering the difficulties of the question
with which e started—the question of how Irelar.d is
to be governed—it is a course fraught with peril to
develop to the utmost possible extent the religious an.
tagonissa between the two countries. When the religious
feelings, potent as they are, become blended with party
movements and popular agitation, they easily acquire a
fierce and fanatical character. What will be the pros-
pects of the empire—of the union—of religious liberty
—of social tranquillity, if Protestantism in England and
Catholicism in Ireland are excited by all imaginable
stimulants to mutual and deadly hostility? Men may
persuade themselves that they always distinguish
between the belief and the believers, and that when,
with passionate fervour, and in the presence of excited
multitudes, they denounce doctrines as false and immoral,
they do not give admission to a shade of hostile feel-
ing towards those by whom the doctrines are held. We
do not know bow far this blending of the fierceness
of zeal and the mildness of charity can take place
in our frail human nature, but it will hardly be denied
that the hot No-Popery invectives, in which members of
the Tory party are and have been so much accus-
tomed to indulge, do produce irritation snd bad
feeling in Ireland. If the tone of Exeter-ball should
unfortunately become so prevalent as to appear the
tone of the English people, and to govern the deci-
sion of the House of Commons, we really de not know by
what arguments the connexion between the two countries
is to be maintained. By " shrapnell and grape-shot"
the thing may, no doubt, he done; but it will not be much
to the honour of our Christianity if we should ever have
to think of such means.—Chronicle.