The Press. — London, England, 1854-03-04 00:00:00

~;~ 194 ~ iL_ - for a real decision. It would be wise, he urged, to wait until a certain messenger had returned from Russia, bearing news which should be decisive on the question of peace or war. The time required for the passing of financial measures had been uttderrated, acid its extension was desirable. A delay LIMA after the Easter holidays would give an oppor tunity to introduce the Scotch and Irish bills as well as the English. Worse excuses were never made by schoolboy ; yet to excuses like these the House listened with patience, every member present knowing as well as Lord Jont; himself that the bill was shelved, and most members knowing why and by whom. Mr. HUME alone, in his octogenarian simplicity, refused to adopt the popular belief. Warmly, indignantly, the Nestor of reform protested against the violation of pledges solemnly given, and the abandonment of measures formally introduced. Poor Mr. HUME ! so well versed in politics, and so ignorant of politicians! Could not your half century of experience teach you that a Ministerial majority absolves all offences, and that two years of office held under false pretences may in some circum stances he a very good joke? But we mis take much if to Lord JOHN RUSSELL—who, whatever his faults, is a man of honourable mind—the " amiable credulity" of his vete ran supporter were not more painful than the taunts and censures of his political an tagonists. For what reproach so bitter as that of the friend who, naming the very act which you are about to commit, says, " If I believed you could be guilty of such a thing, our acquaintance must end, but I know you too well to think it possible?" The Minister might afford to look down from the height of an established reputation on such a critic as Sir JOHN SHELLEY ; but the anticipated condemnation of his oldest and most honest ally must surely have cost him a pang. It may be, indeed, that among those who cheered his angry but feeble retort a large majority were not the dupes but the accomplices of his deception. But the people out of doors have no such interested objects to serve; in their eyes the delay of the bill means its abandonment; to them there is nothing laughable or admirable in the sight of par liamentary tergiversation ; nor do they see with pleasure the self-immolation of a distin guished character before the altar, not of party but of intrigue. Past quarrels should not be revived ; but the assumption of superior purity both provokes and justifies retaliating criticism ; and the scene of last night could not but recal to us the memorable words of Mr. SIDNEY HERBERT, used eighteen months ago, " If you wish to see a spectacle of humilia " tion (which God knows is always painful), " look on the Treasury Bench!" MONA STIC AND CONVENTUAL INSTITUTIONS. ON Tuesday last Mr. T. CHAMBERS moved for a select committee to inquire into " the num " ber and rate of increase of conventual and " monastic institutions in the United King " dom, and the relation in which they stood to " existing law ; and to consider whether any, " and if any what, further legislation was " required on the subject." Lord JOHN Rus- SELL, on the part of the Government, opposed the motion, but it was carried against him, chiefly in consequence of the calm, statesman like, and convincing speech of Mr. WALPOLE in its favour. It cannot be denied that a belief does exist in England that all the inmates of convents )t thr - -tirely of their own free will ; their position, not the world, but as ies have in par to prevent corn . the lady devoted the world without. unjust and desti t not be for the are not there entirely of the X :tu ee i b ili • I. qon from I regard th •• • .."111'. law . ifficulti4 : r Akaa . • 45,.• osed . , ~, • I , ~ , t. 1 • . weep t e , • • 144*- . . s in ti - . - - ....A! .l ,-,-; ...... :yon be 1 iu ..e " ''' l It . 7... aLon, would it >IAM' , 1 THE PRESS. interests of the Roman Catholics themselves to dispel the delusion by open investigation ? But it is alleged that an inquiry into these institutions would violate delicacy; and an analogy• is attempted to be drawn between them and private &allies. The answer LI obvious. Nunneries are not families : the authority of a Lady Superior over those in her charge bears no resemblance to that which God and nature give to the parent over die child. And there is a point which, as Mr. WALPOLE well observed, has been strangely overlooked in these discussions—viz., the right of every subject to the protection of the State. The law absolves infants from the conse quences of their acts unless after the period of full age they ratify those acts. So also in the case of persons of unsound mind, not only are their acts invalid, but inspectors at stated periods visit the places where they are con fined, for the purpose of protecting those who cannot protect themselves. Now, we are far from saying that persons who immure them selves in convents are necessarily under duress; but this we do say, that it is possible some may be under constraint, moral if not physical, and, if such cases do exist, it would be a dereliction of duty on the part of the State to abstain from covering them with its protecting shield. In the relations between the sovereign power and the subject the State knows no distinctions of creed. All—Roman Catholic, Protestant, Jew, and Infidel—are equally enti tled to its care ; and if, from any peculiarity of religious discipline in any particular sect, facilities for oppression may exist, then the governing power should step in and meet the evil by countervailing checks. In all ordi nary cases the writ of habeas corpus is suffi cient, but the organisation of monasteries and convents affords such an admirable machinery for secrecy and evasion that virtually the writ is inoperative. Now, this is a serious evil, when it is consi dered that, if in all the convents of England not one inmate is under duress and restraint, it can be only because the directors of those institutions are singularly virtuous and exempt from human passions, and not because they have not ample facilities for perpetrating any iniquity they please. It is a question, not of religion, but of common sense. Despotic authority should never be entrusted to any human being who can exercise it in absolute secrecy. But, granting that there are no cases of phy sical duress in convents, are there none of mo ral coercion ? Have *e not heard of property diverted from its natural course of descent—of blood relations left destitute whilst Roman Catholic institutions and Roman Catholic clergy have flourished on the wealth wrung from the weakness or the terrors of the dying. The arrival of Cardinal WISEMAN in England was marked by increased activity in his clergy; and no one can forget the numerous cases that at this period pressed into the Court of Chancery, in which natural heirs of testators impeached the validity of wills made in favour of Roman Catholic institutions. Monasteries and convents stand on a some what different footing. The former are illegal, but their existence has been connived at ; the latter are not illegal. Now, the inquiry to be instituted will not be with a view of suppress ing but only of regulating them; and this power is exercised in every Roman Catholic country of the Continent. Can it be contended that conventual and monastic institutions should be exempt in Protestant England from restrictions which would be imposed on them in Roman Catholic Bavaria ? In what manner those institutions should be regulated will depend upon the result of the inquiry. At present we confine ourselves to this—that Mr. WALPOLE laid before the House ample reasons to justify the appointment of the Committee for the purpose of preliminary investigation, so that the people of England may know what these institutions really are, which are now, either with their sanction or connivance, overspreading this Protestant land. SATURDAY, CONTINUED COALITION SCANDALS. THAT, in the short space of a twelvemonth, one of Lord ABERDEEN'S Lords of the Treasury should have his name associated with the proceedings sworn to have taken place in the two boroughs of Sligo and Carlow is an extraordinary circumstance. Mr. MICHAEL GETHIN, a solicitor, stated before the Sligo Committee on Wednesday :—" Mr. arosoa and Mr. " TORNELET desired him (Grimm) to use all his "influence at the last election for Mr. Joint SADLEIR. "He offered 501. to CULLEN the elder to withdraw "his recognisances. If CULLEN would have taken it, " he would have sent his bill for it to Mr. Sadleir." It seems to have been a foregone conclusion with Mr. GETHIN that Lord ABERDEEN'S Lord of the Treasury would neither have "ignored" his proceed ings, or protested against his bill. The whole evidence before this Sligo Committee is of the most startling nature, and will certainly give that Coalition borough a prominence, more peculiar than honour able, in electioneering annals. One witness swore that he would not have taken 1,0001. to do what one of the supporters of Mr. SADLEIR proposed to him. A postmaster deposed to false affidavits having been offered to him ; and the rival swearers disagreed in their evidence only as to which of the witnesses first proposed the corrupt agreement. Not the least curious incident of the case is, that Mr. COPPOCE was the advocate of Mr. SADLEIR on Wednesday. Next week we shall probably have the report of the Committee before us, and then we may have occasion to mark how, in the game of "party scandals," the Coalition has the worst of it. The purists who pro fess anxiety for their immaculate gloves should reflect that they have dirtier hands inside than the hands with which they come in contact. THE INNS OF COURT AND LEGAL EDUCATION. ON Wednesday Mr. NAPIER moved an address for a commission to inquire into the constitution of the inns of court and their arrangements generally, and the motion was carried, not in silence, but without opposition. Two points will be involved in the in quiry —first, what revenues the legal societies have applicable for the purpose of providing legal educa tion ; secondly, what will be a proper test to apply to candidates for admission to the bar. With regard to the revenues, we believe they will not be found to be so great as is generally supposed. The gross nominal rent of the inns of court is, of course, enor mous, but a Society is never economically served, and the repair of house property always constitutes a heavy deduction from the rental ; besides which the Societies lose by bad debts much more than ordinary landlords. But we are strongly of opinion that the benchers of the inns of court could alter and reduce the fees at present payable by students, and at the same time increase the revenue of the Societies. The alteration we would suggest is to abolish fees, the reason and origin of which no one knows, and impose others for which the students would con sciously receive value in return. With regard to legal education, we cannot conceive why the bar, which requires more diversified knowledge than any other profession, should be the only one to which the candidate is admitted without passing an exami nation. The evils created by the present system are patent to all. In no profession are there such differences in social position and intellectual acquire ments. There is as much difference between an eminent member of the bar and some of the fre quenters of the inferior courts as there is between a European and an African in European costume ; the only resemblance is in the wig. Again, under the pre sent system many idle gentlemen members of influen tial country families become barristers for the purpose of obtaining an easy income by conducting prosecu tions at assizes and sessions. A vast majority of these cases require no other power than that of being able to speak the English language; and yet a mem ber of the bar with a good magisterial connection may obtain a considerable income by these means without any labour or knowledge of law. Mr. NAPIER'S committee will be a great step in the right direction towards the suppression of these evils, and the Right Honourable Gentleman deserves well of the bar and the public for the course he has taken. OFFICIAL PARTISANSHIP IN IRELAND. TUE least excitable of Irishmen putting together various incidents might almost infer that a sys tematic aggression had been designed against the social position of the Irish gentry. We could, if we pleased, cite some farcical proofs of this apparent .1