The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1840-10-06 00:00:00

LORD MORPETWS ATTENDANCE AT MASS,!

(From the Standard.)
It is stated in the Dublin journals of all parties and of all
religious denominations, that on Sunday last Lord Morpeth,
her Majesty's Principal Secretary of State in Ireland, at-
tended HIGH MASS at one of the Roman Catholic chapels
of the Irish metropolis. As the statement is thus universally
made, and as no contradiction has been offered to it, there
seems to be no ground to question its truth.
The fact thus established, in our opinion merits more at-
tention than has been given to it, and we therefore take leave
to present it once more for public notice. -
If any Roman Catholic, holding the high and responsible
office held by Lord Niorpetli, had attended as ostentatiously
as the Irish Secretary appears to have done, the services of
his church, we might regret the sanction given to what we
believe to be a fatally erroneous creed, but we could have no
just reason to complain of the individual. The law has given
to Roman Catholics the opportunity of giving the counte-
nance of rank and station to error—and the law must bear
the blame. Lord Morpeth is, however, a professing Protes-
tant, and, as Protestants, we must regard his conduct in the
particular case as a prostitution of the high rank and office
which he occupies, to the injury of the Protestant religion.
As a Protestant, Lord Morpeth believes, at least he has
sworn upon the gospels that he believes, the sacrifice of the
Mass to be an act of idolatry offensive to the Almighty.
Why, then, has he assisted at that ceremony ? Ile cannot,
like Naaman, plead compulsion—he was not bound by any
official duty, and he was bound by his obligation as a chris-
tian Protestant to be at the time in another place, engaged in
a very different manner of worship. Either the noble lord
was sincere in his participation in the ritual ceremonies of
the Mass, or he was not. If he was sincere he is a Roman
Catholic_; if he was not, his attendance was an affront to the
sincere Roman Catholics present, and a grievous insult to the
Being to whom he rendered a mock worship. There is no
escape from this painful dilemma, and Lord Morpeth is bound
to explain why he voluntarily entangled himself in it. There
is no bigotry in a man's being what he professes to be. The
most liberal Protestant is free to absent himself from the
sacrifice of the Mass, without impeachment of his liberality.
Lord Morpeth goes beyond his oracle, Pontius Pilate, for we
do not anywhere learn that that person joined in the Temple
worship. What must be the effect of conduct like that ascribed
to Lord Morpeth ? Must it not be to create among Roman
Catholics an impression that Protestants are not sincere in
the religion which they profess—that our creed is purely the
creed of expediency and politics ?
Mr. O'Connell, who may be supposed to understand what
serves the interest of his sect, might teach the noble secre-
tary a lesson in this particular. It will be remembered that
at the funeral of the late Mr. Cobbett, Mr. O'Connell at-
tended the procession as one of the mourners as far as the
church-yard gate, and that there he put on his hat and
walked away, avowedly from an unwillingness to assist at
any form of Protestant worship. Perhaps Mr. O'Connell's
scruples upon the occasion were overstrained, for the burial
service of our church scarcely touches upon any of those
points in which we differ from Roman Catholics, but he
doubtless felt that as every man owes the testimony of his
conduct and example to the creed which he professes, he
would injuriously affect the interests of Romanisrn by even
so slight a sanction to the forms of protestant worship.
Nobody who believed Mr. O'Connell capable of sincerity
blamed his conduct on the occasion in question ; for our-
selves, we expressly acknowledged its propriety, upon the
hypothesis that the man was a sincere Romanist. Every one,
however, must see the contrast between the cases of Lord
Morpeth's volunteer, uninvited attendance at high mass, and
Mr. O'Connell's abrupt desertion of the funeral procession
of his friend, rather than countenance by his presence a ritual
which at worst could be but indifferent to him. Now, are
not protestants entitled to claim for their religion a respect
and a care, as sensitive as that which Romanists manifest for
Romanism ? Above all, are we not entitled to demand that
professing protestants in high stations shall not abuse the
stations to which this protestant country raises them to
weaken the faith of protestants and to confirm the errors of
Romanists? Is not religion itself—using the word in its
most comprehensive and impartial sense—is not religion
itself deeply wounded, when the ministers of the crown one
day ostentatiously assist at a ceremony which they have but
a day or two before solemnly sworn upon the gospels to be
in their deliberate judgment an act of idolatry, the most
grievous against the majesty of Heaven ? We put these
questions indifferently to protestants and Roman Catholics :
indeed, as regards Roman Catholics, Mr. O'Connell has
already answered them by his conduct.
But Lord Morpeth has acted, no doubt, with a view to
Romanist popularity. This is as stupid as it is opposed to
right principles. Nobody ever obtained popularity worth the
name from any class by practices which that class would not
themselves pursue in like circumstances. True popularity is
founded in good opinion, and, therefore, deserters, trimmers,
and traitors, never obtain it, though they may obtain a awed
of any kind not incompatible with contempt. Even with
the Romanists of Ireland, the Duke of Newcastle is at this
moment a more popular man, in the only sense in which a
man of honour can wish to be popular, than Lord Normanby
or Lord Morpeth : the duke is denounced, but feared and
admired as a noble and generous opponent, while the mar-
quis and the viscount are slavered over with compliments,
and despised as unprincipled and sordid servants.