The Press. — London, England, 1858-12-18 00:00:00

THE PRESS, DECEMBER 18, 1858. of the line ready in forty-eight hours, he went on to observe that seamen were beginning to entertain a better feeling than they have lately done about the Queen's service. So far, we entirely agree with the Gallant Admiral, for he is on his own element. But when he comes on shore, and begins to lecture us on the inexpediency of land fortifications, in direct opposition to the opinions of the late Duke of WELLINGTON, we confess we do not quite so readily ac k now l e d ge hi s au thority. The truth being, that we are now no longer so safe from a sudden swoop as we were in those days, and ought, conseq ue ntly, to be prov ided with some means of checking an invader's advance until we could concentrate troops in his front. A member of the Society of Friends has addressed a letter to the Times for the purpose apparently of vindicating this society from some of the comments which their recent meeting has provoked. He has been unfortunate, however, in his choice of topics. " Denying the right of man," he says, "to usurp authority in spiritual matters, it has firmly resisted the " payment of imposts levied to support a Ministry which it could not " recognize." Now, few persons intimately acquainted with the proceed ings of the Quakers will be able to suppress a smile at this declaration. Who would not suppose that the firm and conscientious resistance to the payment of imposts, &c., must necessarily point to the existence of a long series of conflicts and a noble army of martyrs? No such thing. The way the impost used to be resisted was of this nature. The collector called at the door and was admitted; the master of the house was conveniently out of the way ; but a few handsome silver forks or spoons were left out upon the sideboard, to which the official helped himself without fear of prosecution ; in a few hours' time they were repurchased by the demure man of conscience, and the proceeds handed over to the revenue. Verily, the children of light are sometimes as wise in their generation as the children of this world. The next point which this felicitous advocate has thought necessary to claim in favour of his connection is that they con sider ostentation in dress as unbecoming the Christian character, and con sequently have done their best to carry out their conviction on this sub ject. Has Friend Blank never heard of the pride that apes humility ? Is he not aware that it is not its splendour that makes a thing ostentatious, but its singularity ? and that the ascetics of the middle ages who wore the same rough garment till it swarmed with vermin were far more truly ostentatious than knights and nobles in their silks and feathers and jewellery? Our Quaker friends, however, have finind out a way of adopting the ostentation of the friar without his real discomfort. Nothing can be finer than their linen, more spotless than their drab, more sound and glossy than their broadbtims ; and yet, forsooth, because they eschew the beautiful colours which nature everywhere teaches us to imitate, they profess themselves to be patterns of Christian humility ! At the centennial celebration of the occupancy of Forts Duquesne and Pitt, held at Pittsburgh on the 25th of November last, a letter of excuse for non-attendance was read from the President of the United States, in which, after congratulating his countrymen on the unparalleled progress of the United States during the last century, he proceeded to some observa tions upon their future prospects scarcely less instructive to ourselves than to those for whose benefit they were delivered. Having noticed with regret that the idea of a division of the Provinces is growing more and more familiar to the public, Mr. 131:CIIANAN expressed himself as follows: "I shall assume the privilege of advancing years in reference to an other growing and dangerous evil. In the last age, although our fathers, like ourselves, were divided into political parties which often had severe conflicts with each other, yet we never heard until within a recent period of the employment of money to carry elections. Should this practice in crease until the voters arid their representatives in the State and national Legislatures shall become infected, the fountain of free government will then be poisoned at its source, and we must end, as history proves, in a military despotism. A democ"atic republic, all agree, cannot long survive unless sustained by public virtue. When this is corrupted and the people become venal, there is a canker at the root of the tree of liberty which will cause it to wither and to die." The Ballot, then, even under all the advantages with which it works in the United States, does not prevent bribery. That it does not prevent bribery is a sufficient proof with us that it would not prevent intimidation. For the latter good effect is entirely dependent on the voter being allowed to vote without !any inquiry being made; on the growth, in fact, of a feeling of indifference upon the subject, grounded on a convicti,n of the impossi bility of exercising "influence" to an extent that would make it worth either the trouble or the odium. But if a sufficiently close connection be tween rich and poor, candidate and elector, is maintained to admit of bri bery, it will admit of the other thing too. This admission from Mr. BUCHANAN comes at a most opportune moment. Mr. and his friends have all been telling us that if ;we object to being "Americanized," it is only because we know nothing of American institutions. Well, at all events, Mr. BectiANAN must know something of them; and what can Mr. BRIGHT say to his expression of opinion? It is quite possible that Mr. BRIGHT personally may consider that he knows Mr. BucHAsAN's business a great deal better than Mr. 13ucHaNaN does himself. When infatuation and presumption have progressed beyond a certain point, contradictions of this kind only lend additional force to them. Mr. BRIGHT very likely is ready to assume the Presidency of the United States at a moment's notice ; to hid the people unlearn the evidence of their senses; and believe, as Lord PETER Made his brothers believe, that dry bread is good roast mutton. Nothing 1237 short, however, of this summary method of dealing with facts will enable Mr. BRIGHT to go on as he has begun. But we very much mistake if the people of England having got rid of one such conscience-keeper at Rome, will be willing to enthrone another at Manchester. If on the other hand, we look to the consequences of universal suffrage as depicted by the Americans themselves, do we see anything to justify the confidence with which Mr. BRIGHT recommends us to adopt it? In another department of our columns will be found extracts from two of the leading New York jour nals showing the legitimate results to which such a system tends. The power of the mob is supreme. And of what does the mob consist ? Simply of the most demoralized class of the community—prize-fighters, pimps, and pick pockets. But if this is the case in America, where the extent of area is such as to mitigate all those evils which arise from an over-crowded and pauper population, what would be our plight in this country, where no such alleviation is to be found ? The vast majority of the British people who arc as yet unpledged to any schemes of Reform would do well to ponder these things seriously ere the time for action arise. Public attention has been considerably fixed upon a judicial inquiry involving the most delicate questions of matrimonial law ; and this trial is more remarkable as an epoch in the history of the law of marriage than from the effect it may have upon the fortunes of those personally interested in the event. It has produced as rem irkable an instance of . judicial expo sition as was ever known in our courts—an exposition which operates to solve an intricate question of law with equal boldness and simplicity. Ac cording to the Judge Ordinary, the technical "condonation" of the counts matrimonial is a blotting out of the offence by the injured party, so as to place the offending party in the position occupied before the commission of the offence. Admirable as this definition is for decisiveness, for simplicity, for comprehensiveness, and for consistency of view, it is by no means en titled to immediate acceptance either on its own merits or in reference to legal authority ; and it is right that the publiz should be aware of this, for the doctrine in question has only just seen the light, and is still on its pro bation. Indeed, one of the jury was with difficulty prevailed upon to in dorse it ; and perhaps he was not the only person in the court of that opinion. Instead of understanding condonation as a blotting out of the offence altogether, it might seem more reasonable to understand it as a blotting out of the otknce as a cause of legal complaint. Consistently with the former definition, a husband might give his wife a solemn promise never to appeal to the Divorce Court, and might keep it in his power to preserve this punishment hanging over her head for any number of years. Most certainly the question deserves that discussion which the Judge Ordinary challenged. But apart from the justice of the doctrine itself', there may he grave doubts as to the propriety of broaching it at the mere trial of an issue ; a stage of proceeding in which Judges are always supposed to deliver the law as already laid down, and not to originate new interpretations, however meritorious. And, in justice to the recusant juror, we must remark, that his appearance of undutiful opposition to the Court was not owing so much to his own obstinacy as to the false position in which he was along with his fellows placed by the charge of the Judge Ordinary. By that authority juries are given to understand that it is a conclusion for them to collect, from all the circumstances of the case, whether condonation has been made, and the next moment they are presented with a very striking and novel view of condonation to which they are required peremptorily to conform. If the question were indeed an open one, the better course would have been to have reserved the facts of the case, and a special finding of the jury, for the full Court, with the object of receiving the opinion of that appellate tribunal upon the legal effect of the circumstances proved. That opinion, it is to be hoped, will still be obtained by means of an appeal from the respondent, and we trust that the examination of his opinion, which the Judge Ordinary seemed either to desire or to defy, may take place, so that he may be relieved from the suspicion either of endeavouring to carry an alteration in our jurisprudence by a coup-de-main, or of allow ing his views of law involuntarily to shape themselves so as to obtain in every case the verdict which his sympathies desire. The case of Mr. Pl:Git, the Chaplain of St. Pancras Workhouse, is peculiar. It does not seem to us to have any special bearing on the subject of the Confessional. The privilege of withholding facts confided to them in their spiritual capacity, if we mistake not, has been claimed by the clergy of various religious denominations. It is not a question, as the Times states, between ecclesiastical traditions and the law of the land, but between the efficacy of Christian doctrine and the law of the land. That is to say, that if a man is to be exhorted to repentance with any chance of success, it is necessary for the adviser to know not only what he has to repent of, but the whole circumstances of the case. In fact, it is the latter upon which his moral guilt will almost entirely turn. But, then, if the culprit will not make these admissions without a promise of secrecy from the clergyman ? Which is he to prefer, the salvation of a soul, or the vindication of the law ? There Call be as little doubt what the civil legis lator will say upon it as what the Christian minister will say. The former knows that a practice founded on the convictions of the latter would lead to the grossest abuses. The latter of course considers it in a different light. No man thinks his own opinion or his own practices liable to abuse. This is the difficulty that always confronts us in dealing with professional or special questions. We do not doubt, ourselves, that the civil power must reign supreme. But we say that the collision is not between law and sacerdotalism, but between law and every kind of religion. Law neces sarily regards men in masses ; religion as necessarily regards the individual. And though perhaps there is no real contradiction between the interests of the two, yet to appreciate the truth requires a degree of foresi g ht an d impartiality which the avorago profe s sional man can hardly be expected to possess.