The Sun.
London, England, 1844-12-25 00:00:00

SPIRIT of the PUBLIC JOURNALS.

FROM THE DAILY PAPERS OF YESTERDAY.

TIMES.—The unseemly exhibition of variance in
the high places of Church dignity is consummated by
the appearance of the letter of the Bishop of Exeter,
to which we directed the attention of our readers
yesterday. One merit, however, this letter certainly
possesses, of which too many, especially when written
for the public, are altogether (and often pointedly)
destitute. It is plain and intelligible in its phrase-
ology and hilts intention. No one can read it with-
out comprehending what the Bishop says and what
he means to do; and this, in an epistle of such
length, is no slight praise. But a letter, though
written with great talent and perspicuity, may not
absolutely in itself be either agreeable or acceptable
and here is precisely * case in point. We do not
think the Bishop has gained much by the measure.
Setting aside his personal difference with the memo-
rialists and with Dr. Bull, which is, in fact, a pri-
vate matter among themselves, and in which the
public are but slightly interested, we do not suppose
that his cause will derive any fresh access of parti-
sanship, or that his own friends will be greatly
strengthened by it. His manner of treating the op-
ponents of his proceedings is as harsh as ever, or even
more so. He speaks of the hostility with which his
measure has been received by those " who hate the
Church." Now, in language as simple and plain as
his Lordship's, let us be permitted to ask, to whom
does he allude ? What class, or party, or portion of
the " hostile" ones are included in this offensive
inuendo ? We have heard of no angry movements,
but of respectful remonstrances from ardent Church-
men ; and we hope, therefore, that the Bishop of
Exeter will hear with us if we pronounce such lan-
guage to be both unnecessary and unjustifiable.
That he himself does not upon the whole disregard
the voice of public opinion is suffered casually to
creep out. It is an important fact connected with
the Chapter consultations, that after the reading
of Dr. Bull's paper, the Bishop says, he "earnestly
entreated those members of the Chapter who were
parochial ministers, especially in towns and other
populous districts, to tell us what their knowledge
of the state of feeling and opinion among their people
would induce them to anticipate ;" and he appeals to
the Dean himself to remember the emphatic assur-
ances he received in reply, that no discontent of any
consequence was likely to be manifested on the occa-
sion. This is, to some extent, no doubt, an apology
for the issuing of the Bishop's pastoral letter. He
had taken the pains to inquire how the proposed
change would be received, from those most capable of
giving him the best information on the subject. But
while we allow so much, we must also claim a little
more ; and surprised as we really are at the bold as-
sertions of these members of the Chapter, which have
been so singularly and so strongly contradicted by
events immediately subsequent; still we say, if Dr.
Phillpotts had really tenderness enough to consider
the feelings and sentiments of the lfsity before he com-
menced the work he had at that time in his mind, how
much greater cause has he to consult them now, when
such marked and reiterated evidences of the widest
dissatisfaction have been shown on all sides! To
his Lordship's acute and profound discrimination we
leave the solution of the problem. And we hope he
will yet prove himself, in the truest sense, what he
takes so much pains to declare himself to be—the
diligent and watchful Bishop of a diocese that has, as
he himself shiclares, " long been distinguished by the
faithful and warm attachment of the people to the
Church." But how deeply do these last words affect
his own position ! Well may the friends whom he
respects and venerates consider the experiment he is
making " a rash and a dangerous one" among a
people described in such high terms of approbation by
himself. He is, however, we must think, needlessly
alarmed for the Church. We express only our firm
conviction when we assert that the Church of Eng-
land never had such worthy, consistent, intelligent
adherents as now. Where, then, can the Bishop of
Exeter " see" that " resolute determination to resist
all Church authority ?" lie says, tsi many parts of
England. From what does he form his judgment?
What are his evidences of facts ? What his sources
of information ? We venture to disagree with him
in toto. We do not believe that the clergy of the
Church of England were ever—where their conduct
is such as to deserve it—more affectionately and
reverentially esteemed, by rich and poor, high and
low, than they are at this day; and we believe that
they will so continue, if no compulsion to these en-
forced novelties is practised upon the laity. Look
at the influence possessed by every well-conducted
earnest clergyman in his parish, and how readily his
solicitations for aid are seconded ; and then let U 8
hear from Bishop Phillpotts, what no Dissenter has
yet ventured to whisper, that there is " a resolute
determination to resist Church authority." In
one striking instance, in the late Chapter consulta-
tions, he has been wofully misled upon the subject of
perpular feeling, and upon that mistake has acted so as
to offend and alienate large numbers of those who had
as yet been constant Churchmen. Is it not possible
that in the statement to which we now allude he may
have been also deceived by reports or representations
that would by no means be borne out by facts ? It
is at least possible that it may be so—we believe and
affirm that it is so. Let the Bishop satisfy himself
upon this point. We are persuaded, if he will duly
exert his own vigorous intellect, and in,titute unpre-
judiced inquiries, he will "see" something very dif-
ferent indeed from "schism in its most mischievous
form, under the guise of nominal churchmanship,
rampant, and of course intolerant wherever it is seen."
CHRONICLE.—We printed yesterday an impor-
tant letter from the Most Rev. Archbishop Murray,
upon the subject of the Irish Charitable Bequests Act.
We have hitherto abstained from taking any part in
the discussion which has so violently agitated the sis-
ter kingdom upon the subject of this Act ; and in
referring to it now, we do so less with a view to mix
ourselves up in the discussion, than to express a hope
that the candid and temperate spirit of Archbishop
Murray's letter may mitigate the rancour with which
the Bill, and those who undertake to administer it.
have been assailed in Ireland. The Act itself is a good
Act. It was framed in a spirit ofjustice and liberality,
and confers upon the Roman Catholics of Ireland a less
restricted power of receiving bequests for their Church,
than is grarited in those civilised states in which that
Church is predominant, or than our laws of mort-
main permit to the Established Church in England.
We have read with care the speeches and writings
which the discussion of the matter has elicited in
Ireland, and our candid oonviction, now confirmed by
the admirable letter of Dr. Murray, is, that in all the
objections hitherto brought against the Act there is
no ground for agitating against the measure itself, or
feeling otherwise than grateful for it, as a measure of
" substantial value." Some just objections to details
can, and we feel convinced, as Dr. Murray does, will
be removed as soon as Parliaments meets, and the
others seem to us to be emanations of a spirit of sus-
picion, which, though too well founded, its this case is
carried beyond all reasonable bounds. But the
Act itself is not so good as the spirit in which
it has been carried into effect. It is not merely
that, having undertaken, in passing the Act, to
appoint a certain number of Catholic prelates, Sir
Robert Peel has done it fairly and effectually, but
he has done it in such a way as really to alter
the position of the Roman Catholic clergy and Church,
and to denote a very obvious intention of going yet
further in recognising the religion of the Irish people.
Mr. O'Connell unreasonably asks, " Why not call
Archbishop Crolly the Roman Catholic Archbishop
of Armagh ?" Why, for this plain reason, that the
doing so is illegal under the Emancipation Act. But
is it nothing that now for the first time the ranks of
the Catholic prelates are acknowledged, as giving
them the same precedence as the corresponding ranks
in the Established Church ? Is it no indication of a
remarkable and wholesome change in policy, that the
prelates whose existence was never noticed,
except by penal enactments, till last July, and who
up to that time were confounded with every
other dissenting denomination, now take precedence
of Peers, and sit side by side with their Pro-
testant rivals ? If Sir Bobert Peel were here to stop
short in his concessions, he has done that for the
National Church of Ireland which neither he nor any
successors can ever undo. Men do not recognise
offices as conferring rank, unless they be offices in
some national institution. And no one henceforth
can pretend to regard the Roman Catholic clergy of
Ireland in any light save that of a national clergy,
recognised by the Government of the country. Bot
we cannot believe that this step is taken without the
intention of going yet farther. This recognition of
the ranks of the Catholic Church is just one of the
measures by which Sir Robert Peel loves to sound
his way in public opinion. Let it be recollected
that the only ground which he took last year for
not snaking a legal provision fer the clergy of that
Church was that they themselves would not ac-
cept it. No one who is at all cognizant of the
state of feeling in the mere governmental and mode-
rate peirtion of the Tory party, can doubt that
they entertain the strongest desire to link the Catholic
clergy with the State. They believe that there would
be little difficulty on financial grounds, provided the
political objections to the endowment of the Church
of Rome could be got over. This recognition of
rank is a step towards placing that Church in the
position of a national establishment ; and it is an ex-
periment on public feeling which has thus far com-
pletely succeeded. Had the present Commission been
Issued by a Whig Ministry, we should have had a
howl of bigotry and faction from Irish Orangemen
and English ultras enough to deafen us. But Sir R.
Peel, by a long course of judicious starvation and
well-timed castigation, has so lowered the spirit of
the ultras, that they dart not cry out. Dread of the
next blow that may come prevents their resenting the
one under which they smart. Indeed, it is odd
enough to see the Dublin Evening Mail celebrating
an event so favourable to the Catholics of Ire-
land as a triumph over Mr. O'Connell. His
denouncing the Act has made the Orangemen