The Press. — London, England, 1854-04-01 00:00:00

APRIL 1, 1854. " to know in what position those venerable " men (the monks) would be placed if they " were called before a committee ?" Does Mr. BOWYER claim for Roman Catholics exemptions from liabilities to which other classes are subject? Unless he claims for Roman Catholics such privileges, we answer his question specifically, " those venerable men" will stand in the same position as the Corporation of the city of London, the venal voters, and the Irish members. It may indeed be questionable how far these " Schools for Scandal" sitting en per manence may be desirable, but our present impression is that each must depend upon its particular circumstances, and that a strong and general belief that an abuse exists is sufficient to warrant inquiry, when to bring a specific accusation may be difficult and ex pensive. That such a belief does exist in the case of monasteries and convents no one has ever denied; but the noblemen and gentle men who signed the protest say, " The " charges against the convents of women " have long since been satisfactorily re " futed ;" but even if that were so, and if the statement by Colonel NORTH of the occur• rence at Banbury was founded on erroneous information, still the facts would remain that the Rev. Mr. WiLsow, the vicar, received a letter purporting to come from a Miss FITZALAN, the inmate of a nunnery, alleging that she gas about to be taken to Belgium against her will ; that the vicar applied to Colonel NORTH as a magistrate to interfere ; that Colonel NORTH, on consulting lawyers found that the writ of habeas corpus was useless and inoperative ; that he then wrote to the Home Secretary on the subject, and that Sir GEORGE GREY told him he could do nothing ! The nun may not have been confined, the letter received by the clergyman may have been ficti tious, the whole tale may have been one of the class pleasantly called by Lord JOHN RUSSELL " des contes du coq d rune ;" but the acts of Colonel NORTH remain, and the letter of Sir GEORGE GREY is genuine. From these it follows that in England, if the inmate of a convent is de tained. there against her will, no effectual legal agency exists by which she can be released ; and this we say is a condition in which no subject should be left. It is the duty of the State to protect those who cannot protect themselves. We do so in the case of factory children, and we do so in the case of lunatic asylums; not because we believe that many iniquities occur, but because it is pos sible that some would occur if no protection were thrown around the helpless. Many other reasons we might advance in support of the inquiry, but this is the chief, that the inmates of nunneries are practically deprived of one of the main safeguards of that personal freedom which is the birthright of Britain. And when Mr. BOWYER talks of " every English " man's house being a castle," he forgets that against private " castles " the writ of habeas is efficacious, that against nunneries it is not, and that there is sometimes a striking resem blance between a castle and a prison. As the noblemen and gentlemen who signed the protest expressly refuse "to argue the " point," we presume it is becaus e the y think that Mr. BOWYER has exhausted all the objections that can be urged against the inquiry ; and if they, without argu ment, believe that "there are sufficient " constitutional and legal reasons for the re " jection of this proposal, without calling upon " Catholics to deal with it as a religious ques " tion," we trust that we, after argument, and equally omitting the religious element, have also given some constitutional and legal reasons for its adoption. Whatever be the ultimate fate of the proposal, Mr. BOWYER'S amendment w as n egatived by a large majority , not withstandin g the characteristic support it received from the Irish members, who, from seven till eleven, clamoured for a division, and, during the rest of the night, for an adjournment of the debate. THE PRESS. House. It is not many weeks since we had occasion to comment on a letter signed by three superior officers of the three regiments of Foot Guards, in which they protested against public benevolence being extended to the wives of those soldiers who had married without leave, on the ground that such assistance would encourage marriage amongst the military. That protest we thought uncalled for, and the reason unsound, because the marriages had taken place, not only without encouragement, but in spite of prohibitions. But the three gallant colonels are right in their principle, although they were wrong in that particular application of it. Marriages amongst soldiers should not be encouraged. But Colonel HARCOURT, although he merely threw out suggestions for consideration, and did not propose any definite matured plan, seemed to consider it advisable to place the claims of these women to relief on a permanent basis. The Hon. and Gallant Member " thought that the wives of those who were, by the ab sence of their husbands, in a state of practical widowhood, should be entitled to poor•law relief out of the workhouse during that absence." Now, would not this be a direct encouragement, even to prudent soldiers, to contract marriage? It is difficult to see how they accomplish it, but, at all events, soldiers do manage to maintain their wives whilst they are on home service ; and therefore, if Colonel HARCOURT'S suggestion were adopted, there would be no restraint whatsoever on these marriages, which certainly ought, by all legitimate means, to be discouraged. Colonel HAncouar, seeing that he could not limit the operation of a permanent plan to the troops in the East, asked whys distinction should be made between them and other regiments on foreign service ? But the gallant officer should remember that Indian, Colonial, and Mediterranean service comes in the ordinary routine of duty; whereas, after the long peace, a soldier might well be pardoned if, when considering the expediency of marriage, he omitted European war from his list of contingencies. More particularly does this apply to the Guards, who, with two trivial exceptions, have never been on foreign service since 1815 till now. Therefore, while we do not see any objection to the relief by voluntary contributions of the wives of sol diers whose marriages have been contracted before the war broke out, and who are left destitute because their husbands are going on special foreign service out of the ordinary routine of duty, we see very great objections to any general and permanent system, which would encourage thousands of women to enter into a state, first of marriage, then of " practical widow hood" during many years of life, and which would entail on husband and wife the unhappiness gene rally incidental to separation. BURIALS AND THE POOR. Tits Bishop of LONDON has done good service by drawing attention to a practical grievance which at present presses heavily on the poor. In the act prohibiting interments in the burying-grounds of London, which was passed in haste during the cholera panic, no provision was made for that numerous class which, though on the verge of pauperism, are yet too proud to accept parochial relief. Apart from all other considerations, death is to the very poor a terrible aggravation of the miseries of poverty. A few pounds are to the Spitalfields weaver, or to the white-wood worker, a loss which he may never retrieve. And even before the new act a funeral necessarily cost several pounds. But this expense that act has greatly increased. Owing to the vast area over which this overgrown metropolis extends, and interments within these limits being prohibited, burials must now take place miles away from the scene of death,—at Kensal-green, Highgate, Norwood, or other cemeteries. On Sun day, the day when the funerals of the poor are most numerous, long lines of hearses crowd the roads leading to these resting-places of mortality. But the poor have not always the funds necessary to enable them to comply with the requisitions of the law ; the consequence is that in many cases the corpse is kept unburied until the tainted atmosphere is unfit for the living to inhale, and there is too much reason to believe it is at last flung, like that of a dog, into the nearest ditch or pool. No less than three dead bodies were lately found in a pond adjoining the Eastern Counties Railway, and there is little doubt that these were deprived of Christian burial by the cause we have stated. Some remedy SOLDIERS' WIVES• can surely be found for this ; some relaxation in the atringency of the law might surely be perm itted ON Thursday Colonel Thisc orsr, in moving for until cemeteries suited to the poor have been pro returns of the number of wives left behind by the sided. Or, if that is thought inexpedient, we would soldiers now on their way to the seat of war, brought suggest for . consideration whether the metropolit cent the subject of their position generally before th e parishes might not be compelled to provide ade 291 funeral on the application of persons who will deposit a sum of money equal to that which burials coat before the new act passed. If some remedy is not applied, the act designed to protect the public health may engender pestilence, and create practices which are not only brutalising to the poor, but disgraceful to the nation. UNIVERSITY REFORM DEVELOPED. TO THE EDITOR OF " THE PRESS." Sir,—The interest excited by the proposed mea sure of University Reform is by no means confined to those connected with the universities, inasmuch as it embodies a principle which, once admitted, cannot be restricted by a partial application, but must ex pand over our whole system and acquire universal activity. I refer to the appropriation clause, by which it is proposed to set aside the wills of founders and endowers of colleges, in so far as regards the objects of their testamentary bequests. A man born two or three hundred years ago in a humble sphere, in the county of Durham, or of Devon, receives his educa tion at an Oxford college, and rises in after life to an eminent dignity in the Church or the law. Attached to his birthplace, proudly conscious that lie has illus trated it, and grateful to his instructors, he wills to the college where he was trained for his successful career property to endow a certain number of fellow ships, on the condition that a preference of election shall be given, first to his own kindred, and secondly to the natives of his own county, to which he desires an enduring monument of his attachment to be pre served. After the lapse of some centuries the "Friends of Progress " discover that his will does not coincide with their notions, and that he might have disposed of his property more advantageously to the public, which is exceedingly probable, since of " the public " he most likely was thinking but little. Accordingly they set to work to reconstruct his will so as to de feat his intended provision for his family or his. birthplace. In deference to these gentlemen I do not, of course, grudge the universities their emancipation from such testamentary restraints, but I must pro test against their monopoly of so convenient a licence. What is justice to one is justice to another. Let us hear no more of Dulwich masters and wardens of the name of Allen. The "Friend of Progress" knows there is no virtue in a name, and it is mere vanity in a testator to prefer his own to so many others quite as euphonious. Besides, who knows that by adhe ring to the injunction he may not be all the while defeating the real purpose of the founder? Lord John Russell announces that such is the decided opinion of Archbishop Whately. He does not, in deed, state the process of reasoning by which that celebrated dialectician arrived at his conclusion ; but it is most creditable to his ingenuity, and proves how thoroughly he has identified himself with the country of his adoption. None need travel far from home for an opportunity of availing himself of this valuable corrective of the prejudices and caprices of our forefathers. There is, for instance, within a few miles of my residence, s school endowed by a rich bequest, to which the children of three contiguous parishes, where the founder's estates were situated, are exclusively wl• missible. Archbishop Whately would, I feel con vinced, consider the true intentions of the testator to be better observed by extending the benefit to the children of my parish. Again, a gentleman in the same neighbourhood died lately and left a large sum for building a church, in which the rites of the. Establishment are to be exclusively celebrated,. though nearly one-fourth of the district is composed of Dissenters, besides a considerable portion exempt. from any religions predilections. What must be the feelings of the " Fnend of Progress" upon so narrow and illiberal a limitation? But examples equally re pugnant to the " exigencies of the age " might be multiplied ad infinitum. I would suggest, sir, that a commission be ap • pointed for carrying out this principle of the University Reform Bill (should the answer of the Times be affirmative of its serious character). It. might be called the Testamentary Commission. It would consist (of course) of barristers of six years' standing, one or more of whom (the expense to be, paid by a tax levied on the landowners) should. establish, in every county, a court of inquiry into the provisions of all wills by which schools, hospitals, asylums, churches, charities, &c., are at present en. dowed and supported. The whole to be under the control of the Court of Chancery, which, instead of the laborious and uncertain task of extracting from obscurely-worded instruments and contradicter/ codicils what was the intenticn of a testator, would exercise the far easier and nobler function of deciding what it ought to have been. Of the further extension of the principle to that species of property now called "private," the "Friend of Progress" may be hopeful for what advantage does the public derive from the Duke of Sutherland possessing an entire county, or the Duke ...- o. -.- •--~--~—.