4 APRIL 1835, Page 15

LORD STANLEY'S BIGOTRY.

LORD STANLEY has always received credit in this journal for superior vigour as a Parliamentary gladiator. His energy of manner and perspicuity of expression we have never denied; while we have at the same time pointed out his faults as a debater—his want of temper, and of the power or disposition to conciliate his op- ponents. This capital defect, unless he can correct it as he grows older, will of itself always prevent his being an eligible leader of any party in the House of Commons, and more especially of a Ministerial party. But while acknowledging his merits as a mere debater, we have uniformly disallowed his claim to the character of a statesman. his official existence was a series of failures. He took up his measures hastily, maintained them arrogantly, and to serve a temporary purpose abandoned or modified them, like a man of mere shifts and expedients. After all his botching, they were generally turned out unworkable.

Had we previously felt any doubts, however, as to Lord STAN- LEY'S want of statesmanlike qualities of an exalted kind, those doubts would have been dispelled by his speech on the Irish Church question on Wednesday night. The principles which lie then maintained are such as must disqualify him, until they are renounced, from becoming the Minister of a free and enlightened people. Lord STANLEY'S notions of justice, as well as of true policy, seem to be obscured by the most contemptible bigotry. He absolutely went the length of asserting, that it was right and fitting that a parish of Catholics, without a single Protestant within its precincts, except the clergyman, should continue to maintain that clergyman, and keep up his empty church ! When noticing last week the assertion in favour of the Irish Church abuses, that the State had no right to interfere with Ecclesiastical property, it was said, that in that case were the Protestant Epis- copalians in Ireland reduced from half a million to five, those five would be entitled to retain the whole of the Church funds ; and we added, that as the argument was capable of this reductio ad absurdum, it was worth no further notice. But this is nevertheless Lord STANLEY'S argument; for if he would compel a parish of Catholics to pay a Protestant parson who has not a single hearer, he would, were he consistent, keep up the whole Protestant Church Establishment in Ireland, although Primate BERESFORD was the only Protestant to be found in the island.

The circumstances of the people he had to govern would make no difference in Lord STANLEY'S determination on this point. Were the Irish Church property a hundredfold larger than it is, and the number of Protestants reduced to the smallest fraction of what they now are, still not one penny of its wealth would Lord STANLEY permit to be diverted from the purposes of that Church, even though its purpose were the maintenance of an absolute sinecurist,—for where shall we find a greater sinecurist than a well-paid clergyman without the vestige of a flock ? Some Mem- bers, hearty Tories and High Churchmen too, profess a willing- ness to abolish sinecures in the Establishment. Not so Lord STANLEY. Dr. LEFROY professed reluctance to legislate on the Irish Church question, until the Report of the Commmissioners was received ; but Lord STANLEY declares that the Report, be its contents what they may, is nothing to him. He despises facts: he cares not for evidence: he will not abate one jot of what he calls his "principle "—his arrogant resolve, that is, to prop up as long as he can the most monstrous abuse, the most bloody sys- tem of ecclesiastical tyranny, that the history of Christian coun- tries reveals.

This man outherods Herod. It is well for the country that he has spoken so plainly ; otherwise his family connexions, the de- scription of talent he possesses, and his physical energy, might contribute to render him a dangerous person. His temperament is evidently tyrannical; his real principles in general politics may be similar to his notions of right and justice in ecclesiastical affairs, and may have been concealed till now, for the purpose of gaining a certain step in public life. Although satisfied of his religious illiberality, we certainly never suspected him of such an amount of practical bigotry as his speech on the Irish Church disclosed. He who can justify the very worst abuses of the Irish Church, and pitilessly resolve to maintain them as they are now maintained, at the bayonet's point, will probably go dangerous lengths in his secular politics.

It is therefore only a matter of prudence to keep bins in his present comparatively harmless position. This will for the future, in all probability, be no very difficult matter. His disclosure of his readiness to do mischief, has lessened his chance of being able do it. It will be a hazardous proceeding to admit Lord STANLEY into any future Cabinet. It would be tantamount to a declaration of war against the Catholic millions of Ireland, and would of itself justify as well as provoke the determined hostility of all the friends of religious liberty. We consider that Lord STANLEY has irretrievably damaged himself; and on striking the balance between the good and the evil he would probably effect were he again invested with the influence and authority of office, the evil seems to predominate to such a degree, that we confess we by no means regret his singularly indiscreet speech of Thurs- day night.