The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1840-12-15 00:00:00

leaty with the Brazils effectually precludes us from
A owing any preference to Manilla, Java, Siam, St
Domingo, or any other free labour cou

the manufacturers of Manchester prepared to give up
the reciprocal advantages secured to us by that treaty?

The Guardian concludes its reply to t

by asserting

that: this country has been encouraging free labour in
our own colonies during the last six years. Where is
As far as our Whig rulers are concerned,
as we have before remarked, every possible obstacle
has been thrown in the way of the successful working
of the free labour system in the West Indies. Even

the proof ?

in the very last session of Parliament the claims of the
West India planters were contumeliously rejected by
the Whigs. Nothing, in fact, has been effectually done
in order to secure an adequate supply of immigrants
for our colonies, though it has been proved that hun-
dreds of thousands of such immigrants are ready and
willing to accept of the terms which the planters have
offered. Something, however, must speedily be done,
or we shall witness the final ruin of the West Indies.
The friends of humanity must force this subject upon
the attention of the legislature.

As a copy of the letter of the Rev. J. Clark, in refe-
reference to the Pastoral Aid Society, has already been
made public, we feel at liberty to depart from our
original intention, by giving it insertion in our own
columns ; and this we do the more readily because our
"candour" has been impeached in consequence of our
having suppressed it on Friday. Our principal reason
for declining to publish it, in 'the first instance, was a
disinclination to pursue the controversy any further.
We feel assured that the publication of Mr. Clark's
letter will do no harm to any one but himself. It.will
be seen that we have given insertion to a spirited reply
to Mr. Clark's injudicious effusion. As we have no
wish to protract the dispute we shall content ourselves
with a mere reference to the letter of "A Lay Member
of the Pastoral Aid Society," and with an expression
of our concurrence with its language and sentiments.

We have occasionally heard good conservatives, and
good Protestants too, advance the opinion that the
cause of conservatism is damaged by introducing reli-
gious discussion into political questions. We are
allowed to controvert statements of facts, to attack the
principles and expose the fallacies which our opponents
put forth. We may even use occasionally the argumen-
t= ad hominem. But we must allow the religious opi-
nions of our adversaries to remain sacred from assault.
Whether Turk or Mahomedan, Socinian or Papist, we
must judge of the man by his actions or by his pro-
fessions, and exclude altogether from our notice his
religion or the religion of his supporters.
It is something akin to this spurious liberality which

inclines many of our moderate conservatives to depre-
cate the zeal displayed by a portion of our clergy in
denouncing the tenets and the practice of the Itomish
church. "Leave religion alone," exclaim these timid
churchmen. " Leave religion alone," echo the friends
of dissent and the professors of no religion. "Itis a po-
litical quarrel which we have to maintain; and with
political weapons it ought to be maintained." But is
the fact so, we ask ? Is the quarrel, between conser-
vatism and modern radicalism, a political one merely,
or, if so, is it fought by our opponents with weapons
purely of a political nature ? Far from it, we reply;
and the reason why conservatism, in warring with
Whig-radicalism, directs so great a portion of her
strength against popery, is that whig-radicalism sym-
pathises with popery, fosters popery, and is supported
by, and allied with, popery! The power of that dark
apostacy over the pe►sons and the consciences of its
slaves Whig-radicalism eagerly seeks to profit by, and
to direct against our present• Protestant constitution.
The experienee of the last few years shews, too, that
popery, in any political contest, is a powerful and effi-
cacious ally. She allows no dissensions amongst her
flock ; no 'differences of opinion; no splitting of hairs,
which so fatally weakens the protestant interest. The
followers of the Church of Rome, led on by their spill-
ritual superiors or lay fuglemen, throw the whole
weight of their body into the scale; and are ready,
when called upon, even to lay aside the most powerful
considerations of worldly interest, as insignificant when
placed in opposition to the supposed interests of their
church. Their political conduct is made an intrinsic
portion of their religious faith. Surely, then, when
this is so potoriously, and evidently the case, it will be
perceived that we cannot break down the political Power
which popery at present exercises in the state, except
by destroying the chain of ignorance and superstition
by which she leads on her blind dupes to perform her
insidious behests !

But let us see how our opponents treat this alleged
mingling of religion and politics when practised by
themselves. Do they deprecate in their own case what
Mr. Rosson terms the agitation of the Priesthood ? Is
the gag of the law to be applied to "their Reverences,"
as well as to our Protestant Clergy ? Not at all. We
find the Morning Chronicle—the leading organ of the
ministerial party boldly declaring that it is the
bounden duty of the Popish Priesthood to use their
spiritual authority—and how great that is we need not
be told now—to coerce, if necessary, the political con-
duct of their flocks. In a leading article on Saturday
last, upon the subject of the Carlow election, amidst a
mass of frantic railing against the Protestant land-
owners of the county, we find the following passage,
which is pretty significant of the "liberal" view of the
extent to which priestly interference in political matters
may be carried when it is exercised in favour of the whig-
radical party :—" The Priest ought to warn the voter
against the sin against religion (!) which he commits
in voting for a man who seeks to promote what is
destructive to the best interests of his country."
Here, at any rate, we find no mawkish sensitiveness
displayed—no begging of the question. The Romish
Priest—favoured man !—may enter boldly and openly
into the field of politics; become a political agent
and even a canvasser. He may warn the voters of the

sin against religion, which they commit in presuming
to think for themselves. Warn them !—threaten them,
would be the fitter word, and yet the Protestant Clergy-
man, far from seeking to enter thus actively into the
strife of politics, is not even to denounce and expose
this fearful and blood-cemented system, lest he should
be reproached with having a political object in view!

Let us bear in mind, too, the fact that the course of
policy which the Catholic Priesthood consider con-
ducive to what our ministerial chronicler calls, "the
best interests of their country," is that which they
deem to be most calculated to advance the interests of
" their Church," and the destruction of every other
establishment and creed. The Romish Priest has no
country. The supremacy of his own faith is the first
and last object of his thoughts. In his devotion to
" the Church" is absolved every tie of affection, of
relationship and of country; and his political views are
directed as his spiritual training teaches him to direct
them to one sole object—the temporal and spiritual
triumph of the Roman Catholic Faith!
Against such an opponent it is mere childish ab-
•surdity nay worse —to argue that Protestantism
should be restrained from using, in self-protection,
'every influence and every opportunity which her
present position affords her. How soon a tame sub-
mission to the inroads of Popery would remove that
opportunity we shall not speculate ; but at present, we
thank Heaven, she is not gagged !