Mr.Gladstone, we see with deep regret, censures the British Government in India for distributing a small sum among the Catholic priests who minister to the spiritual wants of our Irish soldiers.Now, let us put a case to him.A Protestant gentleman is attended by a Catholic servant, in a part of the country where there is no Catholic congregation within many miles.The servant is taken ill, and is given over.He desires, in great trouble of mind, to receive the last sacraments of his Church.His master sends off a messenger in a chaise and four, with orders to bring a confessor from a town at a considerable distance.Here a Protestant lays out money for the purpose of causing religious instruction and consolation to be given by a Catholic priest.Has he committed a sin? Has he not acted like a good master and a good Christian? Would Mr.Gladstone accuse him of "laxity of religious principle," of "confounding truth with falsehood," of "considering the support of religion as a boon to an individual, not as a homage to truth?" But how if this servant had, for the sake of his master, undertaken a journey which removed him from the place where he might easily have obtained religious attendance? How if his death were occasioned by a wound received in defending his master? Should we not then say that the master had only fulfilled a sacred obligation of duty? Now, Mr.
Gladstone himself owns that "nobody can think that the personality of the State is more stringent, or entails stronger obligations, than that of the individual." How then stands the case of the Indian Government? Here is a poor fellow enlisted in Clare or Kerry, sent over fifteen thousand miles of sea, quartered in a depressing and pestilential climate.He fights for the Government; he conquers for it; he is wounded; he is laid on his pallet, withering away with fever, under that terrible sun, without a friend near him.He pines for the consolations of that religion which, neglected perhaps in the season of health and vigour, now comes back to his mind, associated with all the overpowering recollections of his earlier days, and of the home which he is never to see again.And because the State for which he dies sends a priest of his own faith to stand at his bedside, and to tell him, in language which at once commands his love and confidence, of the common Father, of the common Redeemer, of the common hope of immortality, because the State for which he dies does not abandon him in his last moments to the care of heathen attendants, or employ a chaplain of a different creed to vex his departing spirit with a controversy about the Council of Trent, Mr.Gladstone finds that India presents "a melancholy picture,"and that there is "a large allowance of false principle" in the system pursued there.Most earnestly do we hope that our remarks may induce Mr.Gladstone to reconsider this part of his work, and may prevent him from expressing in that high assembly, in which he must always be heard with attention, opinions so unworthy of his character.
We have now said almost all that we think it necessary to say respecting Mr.Gladstone's theory.And perhaps it would be safest for us to stop here.It is much easier to pull down than to build up.Yet, that we may give Mr.Gladstone his revenge, we will state concisely our own views respecting the alliance of Church and State.
We set out in company with Warburton, and remain with him pretty sociably till we come to his contract; a contract which Mr.
Gladstone very properly designates as a fiction.We consider the primary end of Government as a purely temporal end, the protection of the persons and property of men.
We think that Government, like every other contrivance of human wisdom, from the highest to the lowest, is likely to answer its main end best when it is constructed with a single view to that end.Mr.Gladstone, who loves Plato, will not quarrel with us for illustrating our proposition, after Plato's fashion, from the most familiar objects.Take cutlery, for example.A blade which is designed both to shave and to carve, will certainly not shave so well as a razor, or carve so well as a carving-knife.An academy of painting, which should also be a bank, would, in all probability, exhibit very bad pictures and discount very bad bills.A gas company, which should also be an infant school society, would, we apprehend, light the streets ill, and teach the children ill.On this principle, we think that Governmentshould be organised solely with a view to its main end; and that no part of its efficiency for that end should be sacrificed in order to promote any other end however excellent.
But does it follow from hence that Governments ought never to pursue any end other than their main end? In no wise.Though it is desirable that every institution should have a main end, and should be so formed as to be in the highest degree efficient for that main end; yet if, without any sacrifice of its efficiency for that end, it can pursue any other good end, it ought to do so.Thus, the end for which a hospital is built is the relief of the sick, not the beautifying of the street.To sacrifice the health of the sick to splendour of architectural effect, to place the building in a bad air only that it may present a more commanding front to a great public place, to make the wards hotter or cooler than they ought to be, in order that the columns and windows of the exterior may please the passers-by would be monstrous.But if, without any sacrifice of the chief object, the hospital can be made an ornament to the metropolis, it would be absurd not to make it so.
