The Press. — London, England, 1858-02-13 00:00:00

THE PRESS, FEBRUARY 13, 1858. Parliament, but there can be no doubt that the Oath of Allegiance is o ne of the safeguards of the Constitution, and that it would be most unsafe to alter it. After all Lord PANMURE'S boasts to Lord DERBY about the suffi ciency of recruits, it turns out that the apprehensions of the Conser vative leader were only too well founded. At the very moment when the Secretary fur War was assuring the Noble Earl that no cause for extraordivary measures existed, he was issuing orders fur an increase of bounty. This circumstance, coupled with the fact that only one week before, he had reduced the atandard lower than had ever been necessary during the Russian war, is a complete refutation of his own hardy assertions, and a sufficient proof how necessary it is to criticise his language closely. The report of the proceedings at the County Court of Westbury, in the case of " Wilson versus Bolwell," will interest many readers. The plaintiff was Mr. JAMES WILSON, formerly M.P., for Westbury, now M.P. for Devonport, proprietor of the Economist, and now Financial Secretary to the Treasury. The plaintiff demanded 231. 10s. from the defendant, and in support of the claim Mr. THOMAS RICHARDS, the steward of the plaintiff, deposed to certain facts, and amongst the rest to conversations with the defendant, in which BOLWELL stated that Mr. WILSON had " repeatedly promised him that he should never be " called on for one penny rent if he (BotwELL) would vote for him " (Mr. WILSON), and that in consequence he did vote for him " These facts were extracted from the plaintiff's steward with some difficulty; but, after somo time, he deposed to them, and the report says that " great sensation was excited through the court" It appeared, further, that four years had elapsed since the date of this conversation, and no demand had been peraoually made by the steward upon BOL WELL. It seems, however, that Mr. WiLsoN desired that the defendant should he sued, and accordingly the claim was brought. The defendant's advocate then addressed the Bench in a most striking speech. According to this gentleman's statement, the plaintiff had repeatedly solicited defendant for his vote, and ho had been told in answer that BOLWEI.L "held his. mill under " the other party ;" and then the report proceeds :—" But the more " this was urged the more urgent became Mr. WILSON in his entreaties, " sometimes sitting down crying and sobbing most piteously to Mrs. " BotwEtt., imploring her to intercede with her husband for him !" Of course we recollect that this is ex parte advocacy, and the case was adjourned over until Mr. WILSON could attend to rebut those state ments if lie could. The fact of the four years' delay in the enforce ment of the claim is singular, if true; and other circumstances, also, invest the case with much piquancy. There are as many " schools" of " economists" as of painters; but a pathetic " economist " on his knees before the wife of a sturdy voter is almost as exquisitely ridi culous a picture as that associated by FIRLDING':4 genius with Philo sopher Square, and " the eternal fitness of things." We shall be anxious to see the "rebutting" case made by tile distinguished "economist" who is involved. Factitious attempts are still made to excite interest in " Reform," but without any success. The masses lie heavy, inert, and apathetic. "The Reform Conference" this week, at St. Martin's Hall, has ended in vapid debating. Its object was to promote a union between the middle and the working classes, and it was attended by several non descript politicians, so as that the whole formed a complete " mena gerie." Mr. CHARLES NEATE (on whose "interest" Mr. THACKERAY stood for Oxford) ; Mr. ROBERT OWEN ; Mr. HOLYOAKE ; Mr. ROUPELL, M.P. for Lambeth; Mr. ERNEST JONES; Mr. TOWNSEND, MP. for Greenwich; and other characters, "rich and rare," adorned the plat form. Amongst them was Mr. SAMUEL MORLEY, who was to have cured all the Crimean disasters, and who assisted Mr. CHARLES DICKENS in what the Premier called " the Private Theatricals of Drury " Lane." The opinions ventilated by Mr. SAMUEL MORLEY were really very droll, and, though not coming up to "Haymarket" comedy, they were not below the level of " Adelphi" farce. We are told that in answer to Mr. ERNEST JONES, Mr. Moat.Er said, " The association " wished that every man who could turn the key in his room, and be " registered as the occupier of that room, should be entitled to a vote." He further stated that " he was puzzled to any whether, if two men lodged "in one room, both were entitled to a vote." This is delicious. Why does not Mr. MORLEY " go in " as a farce-writer against the author of Box and Cox? He is equal to the task, if his reported observations do justice to his burlesque of a British freeman. Mr. MATE ex pressed an opinion that both " Box and Cox," in the predicament stated, would be entitled to a vote ; and then ROBERT OWEN but we cannot go further. A Reform " menagerie" certainly contains some exquisite specimens of the " Eccentric Society Revived." The retirement of M. BILLAULT from the post he has so long held, and the duties of which he has NO honourably fulfilled in the Home Administration of France, will, we have reason to believe, lead to some furthur changes in the high offices connected with the Government of France. M. 1311.1.auLT in his retirement carries with him the esteem and respect of France. His fidelity, which is unquestioned, his nice sense of honour, and his devotion to his duties gill in another sphere find opportunities for advancing the interests and extending the influence of his great country. The last mail from China has brought the news we expected. Canton has been Wu:bank:Li fur twenty-four hours, and our troops are 157 in possession of the defences. The assault was made by 4,000 Fng lish and 900 French, and the loss on our side was, of course, absurdly small. As it cannot, however, be supposed that with 4,000 men we are going to conquer China, or that the Chinese will be in the least afraid of our doing so, it becomes somewhat important to inquire what steps are to be taken. Hong Kong is denuded of troops—the northern forts are defenceless. The Chinese are naturally exasperated to the highest degree ; and if not as cruel, are just as unscrupulous in gratifying their hatred as our Indian rebels. Merchants well acquainted with the spot have already expressed anxiety for the fate of Europeans residing at any distance from Canton ; and another and a more widely extended plot than the abortive one of ALUM is feared to be not improbable. But what can this country do, either to enforce her claims on the Court of Pekin, or to protect her own subjects from the rage of the " insolent barbrrian?" The public would not hear of troops being diverted from India to China—from avenging the wrongs we have endured to rivetting the wrongs we have inflicted. Sir COLIN CAMPBELL can muster at present little more than 15,000 men. Till that force is doubled we can do nothing for General STRAUBENZEE. What, then, must be done? Is it nut clear, as we have already pointed out, that we must either accept the assistance of the Frencn or recede from our position ? What will the country say to either alternative ? Where now aro all those braggart manifestoes which issued from the English press some twelvemonths ago? Where now is that glo►ious British policy on which the " greatest War Minister since CHATHAM " rode triumphantly into power? The one silenced, and the other damned. Still worse mismanagement than Sir JOHN BOWRINO'S has awakened a still fiercer spirit than Commissioner YEH's, and been con fronted by a still more: vacillating policy. We cannot fight the Chinese a l'outrance, and they know it. We have not the men, nor could we transport our heavy guns through the interior even if we had. We cannot allow the French to do it for us. And nothing therefore remains but to patch up a peace as absurd as the quarrel which rup tured it, and to back out of the business with as little loss as possible before it is taken from us by other hands. If Lord PALMERSTON did not waste " a year " by his dissolution, he did worse. He wasted the bone and sinew, the pluck and prestige of which there was so dire a need elsewhere. Not only every Wykehamist, but every Englishman who desires that the youth of England should be as vigorous and manly in future as it has been in past times, ought to give his cordial support to a Society of Wykehatnists now in course of formation, and having for its object the re-establishment of the public school-matches at Lord's Cricket-ground. These matches, for many years so popular, have been abolished by the authorities of Winchester and Eton, because it is alleged, forsooth, that some of the boys who played in these matches by day got into scrapes by night. Now, if youths who contended in these games were boys of twelve or fourteen years of age, we could quite understand why the masters of Winchester and Eton - were anxious that boys of that age should not be left hi London for a week without any supervision ; but the fact is, that boys very seldom play in the elevens of the respective schools before they are seventeen years of age—an age at which many youths are left in London for twelve months at a time, without any controlling influence, and without any special mischiefs befalling them. The idea of keeping youth out of temptation is an admirable one if it could be continued from school to the grave ; but as Dr. MOBERLY cannot govern his scholars through life with his rod, we recommend him to teach them to govern themselves. The public school formerly fitted a boy physically, as well as morally, for 'the battle of life. But now the authorities—men of learning no doubt, and men able to educate, if education were limited to Latin and Greek—but yet men who, from their lib►ary habits, are totally ignorant of the world and of human nature—seek to deprive the boys of that healthy experience, the best guarantee for success in after• life, and to limit them to the library and the lecture-room. This will never do. At sixteen years of age a Westminster• boy, the late Lord RAGLAN, was chosen by " the Duke" to be his private secretary. If he had been educated on the apron-string principles of the present day, would he have been as well qualified for the post as he was ? We think not. Day by day, and year by year, more liberty and greater opportunities of self-control should be given to a youth, that he may gradually become habituated to personal freedom. A young man of seventeen, who any day may become an officer in her Majesty's service, and have the command of others, or a Government clerk, dwelling in London, with no other protection than his walking•stick, or who in twelve months may pos sibly be an undergraduate at Cambridge, ought to be so educated during the previous seventeen years of his life that he may be able to take care of himself in London fur a week. If the present masters of our public schools cannot teach this, the gentlemen of England had better find some other teachers for their sons, if they desire► that the next generation should not be a generation of " muffs." The farewell dinner to Dr. LIVINGSTONE, announced to be given this day, will, we have little doubt, be fully attended. Dr. LIVING. STONE returns to Africa to continue his valuable researches, and to en deavour to bring to the natives of the interior those blessings which commerce and Christianity alone can confer. Dr. LIVINOSTONE will leave England under the auspices of the Government, and with the good wishes of all. He alone has struck into the path which will lead to the abolition of the foreign slave trale—the introduction of legiti mate commerce. Let us but once succeed in opening up the country, and all experience proves that we need have no fears for the result.