SIR R. PEEL IN IRELAND.
WE were not among those who approved the selection of Sir Robert Peel as Secretary for Ireland, believing that his und9ubted capacity was impaired by unatatesman- like recklessness and indifference to political principle. It is, therefore, from no feeling of self-satisfaction that we join in the chorus of applause that his recent outbreak has elicited from almost all parties in Ireland. Apart altogether from his general policy, which in the matter of the University is open to criticism, he has displayed in his recent fight with Archbishop Cullen the quality in which our Ministers are so often deficient, a courage resting on something more solid than party approval. It was never more wanted to Ireland than at present. The ancient feeling of English statesmen, Orangeism transferred from religion to politics, has for years given way to another which we can only de- scribe as a disposition to adulate priestly opinion. Orangeism is of course evil, as evil as any other form of intolerance, and more directly injurious, perhaps, than other political blunder, except, indeed, submission to priestly menaces. English statesmen are not priest-ridden, but they have had for years a tendency in dealing with Irish affairs to forget that the Catholic hierarchy are in no sense an external power, but to be opposed or caressed, like any other in- fluential subjects of the Queen. To judge by the habitual submissiveness of public servants in Ireland, they seem to have lost even the idea that a Bishop may be a bad poli- tician, or an Archbishop deficient in brains. Impertinence in a priest was never rebuked, and a Bishop was to be an- swered respectfully even when he defied the Government. So thbroughly was this tone accepted, that Irishmen expected the Secretary for Ireland to apologize because Dr. Cullen chose to attack him. He had gone to the West to inquire for himself into the stories of approaching famine daily pro- claimed in the newspapers. Of course, his journey was rapid, and his glance partial, but it was a great deal more useful than no journey at all. If he only spoke for five minutes to each of the official informants, his judgment on their reports would be twice as accurate as 'before, while very short conversations indeed with Poor Law Guardians and county magistrates would probab)y teach him more than whole files of despatches. The journey, however, did not please Archbishop Cullen. He was irritated apparently by Sir R. Peel's desire to establish new colleges instead of throwing the University open, and possibly did not desire that a Secretary should be well informed. A cordial recep- tion might diminish the force of the threats which his organs consider the most available arguments. He resolved to rouse the Catholic party against their guest, rummaged Hansard for Protestant speeches, pieced together the ex- tracts, did pronounced Sir Robert Peel on that evidence a foe to the Catholic Church. The story that he placarded Sligo with his denunciation is denied, but it is quite imma- terial to the issue. It is certain that Archbishop Cullen grossly assailed Sir R. Peel while on a tour intended to enable him to relieve suffering, not for anything he had done or omitted, but simply for holding certain religious opinions, and certain, too, that Ireland expected the Secretary to bow to the rod, and apologize for his own presumption in being rebuked by a priest. And it is, we fear, almost equally certain that the average Secretary for Ireland would have fulfilled the popular expectation, have explained away his own words, and disclaimed the idea of "rousing religious animosity" by defending himself against an ecclesiastic. The very same man who would answer a politician or sternly rebuke an official, or bid defiance to any organized combina- tion, would cower before the loud words of a priest, answer him as he would answer a woman, by silence and deprecation, and with exactly the same result. The consequence has been that Catholic bishops talk just as clergymen preach, without fear of a censor or an opponent. Nobody smiles at their vehemence, so their rhetoric degenerates into a roar; nobody retorts their abuse, so their sarcasm has a tendency to lapse into slang ; nobody exposes their fallacies, so that the habit of careless statement hardens to utter recklessness of asser- tion. Sir Robert Peel has chosen a bolder and, in our judg- ment, a healthier course. He answers the Archbishop, just as he would answer any other opponent, without fear, or favour, or mercy. He tells him boldly that he has done what no Archbishop of Canterbury could do without uni- versal reprobation ; that his language savours rather of monkish superstition than of religious tolerance; that his denunciations of public men at the sacred altar of the Most High are wholly incompatible with the precepts of the Gospel. His answer is all true, and in boldly asserting the truth he did but give courage to liberal Catholics to say what so many among them have thought, what indeed in Catholic coun- tries statesmen are saying every day. The popular argu- ment in Ireland seems to be that because the majority of Irishmen are Catholics, Catholic priests are to be chartered libertines, with right of attack without reply, and of abuse without offence. The Catholicity of Ireland has in reality nothing to do with the question. No prelate in England claims exception from the rules. of political warfare, and a prelate in Ireland may surely be content without asserting a right to assail with the full consent of his victim. The priests of a past generation used, it is said, to whip refrac- tory sheep of their flock, and excommunicate them if they had the audacious impiety to hit back again. Civilization, however, has its effect even on priests, and they now content themselves with demanding that all they may say, however abusive, or false, or illogical, shall be heard without a reply. Englishmen untrained to a traditionary servility will think the new claim rather worse than the old, and respect the politician who tells the priests that if they will obey no law of peace, they shall at least obey the laws of the political ring. We trust we shall not be mistaken. For anything ap- proaching to Orangeism, or an anti-Catholic policy in Ire- land, we have the most hearty abhorrence. Any insult to Catholic prelates as such, any outrage on any religious feeling however mistaken, would meet with no sympathy from us. We only wish Pitt's policy had been carried out when it was possible, and the Catholic prelates brought by State pay under the heel of the State. But thoughtful Liberals have long been tired of the habit of unreal deference to the men who, like Dr. Cullen, cover political malice with a garb of religious zeal, claim for manifestoes the impunity given to sermons, and treat Ministers of State as they would guilty penitents in the confessional. The just abolition of Pro- testant ascendancy does not imply the unjust ascendancy of mitred stump orators.
Previous page
