The Press. — London, England, 1854-04-29 00:00:00

APRIL 29, 1854. CATHOLIC EXAGGERATIONS, OR THE IRISH CATHOLIC DECLARATION. AFTER considerable delays, and with great flourish of trumpets, the " Declaration of the Catholics of Ireland" with respect to Conven tual Intitutions has made its appearance. The document is written in a bold style of com position, and bears marks upon it of the pens of lawyers, and of its being drawn up for Irish circulation. We feel assured that many of the statements in it would not be endorsed by the English Roman Catholics. For example, the declaration commences with the state ment—" It is our earnest wish and obvious " interest to be identified with our fellow-sub "jects " ? An excellent sentiment, truly ; but has the conduct of the Irish Catholics since the Relief Bill illustrated that sound prin ciple ? Was " Repeal of the Union" likely to identify her Majesty's subjects in England and Ireland ? Were " Young Ireland," the mon ster meetings, and perpetual assurances that "England's difficulty was Ireland's oppor " tunity," intended to prosecute social con cord ? These are questions which we leave to the Roman Catholics of England to answer. Recollecting the virulence of the invectives which Mr. O'Costiztt was accustomed to dis charge at the Catholics of this country, be cause they shamed his disorganising societies, we feel assured that English Catholics will admit that this " Declaration" has much Hiber nian exaggeration in its assertions. Nor can we think it very discreet for the subscribers of this declaration to announce, in reference to conventual institutions, that they " thankfully admit their conventual institu " tions to be most efficient instruments for pre serving and propagating the Catholic religion." We cannot forget that the " Catholic Claims" were conceded without securities being given. Mr. GRATTAN was the most zealous advocate the Catholics ever had, and in 1817 he cau tioned Parliament against yielding without securities, " because in that case you will " have the Catholics discorporated from Eng " laud." The Duke of WELLINGTON and Sir ROBERT PEEL refused" Catholic Emancipation" in a moderate shape, and they gave to O'CON NELL what neither Fox, BURKE, GRATTAN, or others would have advised. Well, what is the state of the case now ? Here, in this very document before us, we have the Romish hierarchy in Ireland, with several official Catholics, judges, Queen's counsel, and others, boasting, with ill-dissembled pride, that they have such " efficient instruments for the " propagation " of their creed. We doubt whether the Protestants of the empire will acquiesce in the conclusion that a conventual artillery, noxious in proportion to its being noise less, is to be allowed to discharge its de structive volleys against the faith of the English people. It is of a piece with the exaggeration that runs through this declaration for its subscribers to complain of the "vexatious and virulent iu " tolerance" to which they have been subjected. We would ask the more candid among st them whether the complaint does not smac of that humour which is so " racy of the soil" in Ire land? Only think of PAUL CULLEN and the " Lion of the Fold of Judah" condescending to roar against "vexatious intolerance," while they are allowed to disport themselves under Queen VICTORIA in a manner which no ruler of our allies, from Lours XIV. to the present Em peror of the FRENCH, would allow ! Then we are treated to a paragraph which was probably concocted by some of the sergeants-at-law. The Protestants of the empire are railed at as "wishing to exclude the Catholics from " all advancement." The charge carries its own rerutation, for it smacks of the Four Courts' style of forensic overstrlement. Not a tenth of the Irish Bar is Roman Catholic ; yet within the last few years there have been appointed from it, a Master of the Rolls, two Chief Ba rons, a Chief Justice of the Common Pleas, and a Puisne Judge. We observe, also, the name of " JOHN HOWLEY, First Sergeant-at- Law," amongst the subscribers, a gentleman w;io attained his promotion under a Conser ,..4tive Ministry some years since. THE PRESS. It is right to distinguish carefully between the promotion of individual Catholics, and tamely permitting Romanism to spread its nets around our community, Promotion of a wor thy Roman Catholic is one thing, and culpable concessions to the wily audacity of his Church is a very different matter. We can admire eminent judges, like an O'LootitEN and a WoutFE ; we know how to reward them ; but we also know that Jesuits should not be pa tronised in a free country, and we deny that in the realm of England secret and irresponsible societies are to be allowed. The " Declaration " expresses in a significant style a great horror of the Habeas Corpus Act. It says, "We "are opposed to inquiry, because the very fact " of inquiry implies the dishonourable suspicion "of abuse," a maxim which may pass current in Southern Europe, but which is obviously con trary to the rule of " publicity " that obtains in these countries. We should like to ask the lawyers who signed this "Declaration "—if such sentiments are to be approved of—how they could cry out against " Orangeism " and its lodges ? Upon this latter point we may have more to say on a future occasion. It is enough hero to record that we cannot accept this " Declara tion " as representing the Catholic body at large. There is too much servility to Rome, and too much of the slang of " agitation " in its style, to allow its passing current as the ge nuine thinking of our Catholic fellow subjects. THE EARL OF CARDIGAN, HIS REGIMENT, AND HIS CRITICS. A LETTER, signed " Common Sense," lately appeared in the Times, criticising the equipments and certain routine proceedings of the 11th Hussars, which distinguished regiment is now under orders to em• bark on foreign service. Why, it was asked, is their commanding officer, Brigadier-General the Earl of CARDIGAN, still in this country! We do not contest the occasional utility of civilian criticism on military affairs, and we should not notice this letter had it not been pervaded by a tone of envenomed sarcasm in dicative of personal animosity which grates harshly on the ear when applied to those who may soon dare death in support of the honour of England. The Earl of CARDIGAN has never been accused of holding laxly, but rather of drawing tightly, the reins of military discipline; and, if he is still in England, the Times may rest assured that his stay is in obe dience to superior orders. Indeed, we do not exactly see of what use the presence of the Noble and Gal lant Earl would be in the East without his brigade, and why that is not there it is for the Duke of NEW CASTLE and the Government to answer. Some have thought that the courage of the Earl of CARDIGAN amounts to rashness, but " Common Sense " has assumed an inappropriate name if he would send the Noble and Gallant Earl, like another ARTHUR or ROLAND, to charge the Russians unsupported by a troop. These are not the days of necromancy or knights and giants ; artillery has nearly extinguished the utility of individual daring ; discipline decides battles ; and " Common Sense" may rely upon it that the Noble Brigadier-General has not been guilty of disobedience to orders. But there is another reason why we allude to this subject. The Earl of CARDIGAN addressed a letter to the Times, briefly and clearly explaining why those things which excited the umbrage of " Common Sense" were not exactly as the latter wished. This letter the Times printed verbatim et literatim, and it contained precisely one mistake, and no more. We need hardly say that all manuscripts, as a rule—and we will not except even the leading articles of our contemporary—contain many more. But our con temporary has more than once had the bad taste to allow communications to be printed with errors ob viously clerical when it had personal animosity to gratify. THE SCHEME FOR UNIVERSITY REFORM. THE Ministers were sorely puzzled on Thursday to find reasons for persevering with the Oxford Uni versity Bill. They abandoned their scheme of Reform because they felt unequal to the task of persuading Parliament to sanction their mode of altering the Constitution. Recollecting the moral relations subsisting between our universities and the national mind of the country, many persons feel that a Cabinet unequal to dealing with small boroughs could scarcely be competent to reforming colleges of high renown. It seems clear that, if they had to 387 fall back upon postponement in the first case, a similar retreat would be necessary in the latter. That the Cabinet should retrace its steps would be not unreasonable, as the principle of their University Bill is in some parts retrogressive. Some of its clauses are not drawn up in what the Whigs would call " the spirit of the age," but appear to re •embody the Presbyterianism of the times of the Protectorate. As the Ministery appear partial to abortive legisla tion, and like to give as much trouble av possible with the measures it intends to abandon, we are by no means sure, from the stand it made for this bill on Thursday, that they have any serious intention of proceeding with it this session. TESTAMENTARY JURISDICTION BILL. TO THE EDITOR OF " THE rrtEss." Oxford and Cambridge Club, April 27, 1854. Sir,—ln reference to your clever though too super ficial notice of the Testamentary Jurisdiction Bill you certainly have caught the popular, and, in all respects but one, I will just advert to the correct, view of the case. I would observe that there must be some misapprehension in the notion that wills are slovenly kept or allowed to fall into decay in the country registries. For, not to mention that such a practice would damage the registrar by the loss of search fees, or necessitate expense iu the additional time and pay of clerks to meet the want of arrange ment, I have found the documents carefully kept in such registries as I have inspected, whether in dir. tricts remote a 14 St. Asaph, or of so limited a jurisdic.. tion as Ely. In our own important registry of Chea ter the wills and administrations have been indorsed from an early period. And ever since I came into office the wills have been enrolled at length in books for the convenience of reference and additional safety. With the same object another house was purchased by me about seven years ago, which has proved a great accommodation to the public. Searches are carried on in so large and increasing a scale as to show that the public appreciates the ad vantage offered, and is encouraged by the prompt ness and success of the investigations. It is not, of course, reasonable, nor perhaps desirable, that we should be able to meet the wishes of the low class of fortune-hunters by always providing the wilt they fancy or assert is deposited with us. But I believe that no case has occurred of a will actually proved being subsequently lost, except at one remote period, in the time of the Commonwealth. And whether this loss arose from the humidity of the climate, or the public disorders of the age, the present officials can scarcely be held responsible for what occurred two centuries ago, any more than for the destructive fire of London some ten years later, that is thought to have destroyed a few important records iu the metropolis. Indeed, so highly do I think of the safety and arrangement of the Chester registry, that. 1 deposit all my own title deeds there, as well as such docu ments as friends and connections have trusted to my care. Had our position been less precarious I have no doubt that all the improvements in method, and re duction in charges, that the increasing and valuable business of the Chester office rendered a matter of necessity and duty, would have been cheerfully adopted in less important dioceses. But there has been little encouragement to practical reform, when unremitting attention has been branded as sinecurism, and any surrender of emoluments been met with a threat of abolition.—l am, sir, your obedient ser vant, H. RAIKES. [Mr. Raikes has a right to the insertion of his letter; for our allusion to the manner in which wills are taken care of or neglected at the diocesan registries was general. Still we never had the slightest intention of imputing neglect to him ; indeed, one of the authorities on which our state ments were made speaks highly of the manner in which the Chester registry has been conducted since Mr. Raikes has been registrar. But other statements in the same pamphlet (" An Account of the Present Deplorable State of the Ecclesiastical Courts of Record," &c., by Wm. Downing Bruce, Esq., of Lincoln's-inn, Barrister at-Law, F.S.A., &c.) fully justify the general allusion in our article. Thus, " at the Gate House at Lincoln are deposited, or " rather gradually decay, documents, the loss of " which would be the ruin of many families by " needless ligitation." At this registry Mr. Bruce himself, dining a casual visit, saved several valuable documents from destruction, " some having been " placed in a basket for removal." The registry at York was described by Mr. Protheroe, M.l'., to be in "a scandalous state;" and Mr. Bruce, on his own authority, makes serious statements respecting the wills in the official custody of Mr. Vernon Harcourt. Many other instances might be added, but we have said enough to justify our general allusion, and to exclude the Chester registry from its scope•—ED. OF THE PRESS.] (.1