The Press. — London, England, 1856-05-31 00:00:00

_ • .. , •-• 4 .. . . - . . : P . ' , . - -'...,..... i lil t Livi No. 161.—VoL. IV. tile Vrtss. LONDON, SATURDAY, MAY 31, 1858. LORD ELGIN, in a guarded speech, submitted to the Lords on Tuesday some considerations on the state of our relations with America. The subject could not have been in better hands. Lord ELGIN is one of the few great statesmen of our day. His Canadian Admi nistration has established his reputation on a solid basis. It will bear to be tested by results Contrasted with the Indian Administration of Lord DALHOUSIE, we see the difference be tween sold and showy qualities of government. There exists on record no example of such progress in every element of prosperity as Canada has exhibited under Lord ELGIN'S rule. His experience of the character of the United States Government and people gives additional weight to his opinions. He touched on both the Recruiting question and the Central American question. The points originally in dispute were of the most trifling nature. They arc in themselves so subtle as almost to elude apprehension. They more resemble the refinements of school men than the differences of practical politi cians. On reading the correspondence, our wonder is moved at the ingenuity which could evolve serious difficulty from such insignifi cant elements of disturbance. Lord ELGIN pointed out that on each of the questions in debate our Government has adopted a line the very reverse of that which true policy should have dictated. The Execu tive of the United States has great difficulty in preventing its adventurous and turbulent population from engaging iii unlawful enter prises. It is this aggressive spirit which en dangers the tranquillit7. of neighbouring coun tries, and exposes them to attack. The neutrally laws of the States are feeble to re press it, but they are the only check which can be imposed on it; and manifestly it is the in terest of Eng and to seize every opportunity of impressing on the American Government the importance of strictly enforcing those laws. We ought rather to urge that they should be made more stringent, than that they should be in any way relaxed. The opposite view is adopted by Lord CLARENDoN. He argues for the greatest lati tude in the interpretation of the neutrality laws. He picks out their weak points. and in sists that advantage may be taken of them. Because they ale lax, they may be totally evaded. In his last despatch, of the 30th of April, he is careful to show how much more loose are the neutrality laws of the States than those of this country. Recruiting is for bidden within the American territory, but he contends that American citizens, when once clear of that territory, are at liberty to enter the service of any foreign Power they please. This is an evasion of the spirit of neutrality which a Minister of England ought never to have sanctioned. Lord CLARENDoN is playing into the hands of the extreme Democratic Party. The motion which has lately been LONDON, SATURDAY, MAY 31, 1856. submitted to the Legislature for abolishing the neutrality laws altogether, might be hest sup ported by arguments from Lord CLARENDON'S despatches. With regard to Central America, again, it was the policy of this country to uphold the independence of the Central American States. The Bulwer-Clayton Treaty had been con cluded for that express purpose. It was our part to give a liberal, not a restrictive inter pretation to that treaty, that the whole region, being free from the influence of any one great Power, should be open as a highway of transit to the commerce of the whole world. In comparison with the attainment of this great object the right we claimed to a protectorate of part of the Mosquito tern tory, or to the possession of some small islands on the Honduras coast, was ex tremely insignificant. Such rights were value less, but to maintain them we have suf fered the principle to escape us of preserv ing inviolate the independence of the whole region of the isthmus. There is great force in the American argument, that in respect to future acquisitions the probability of advan tage. if only from proximity of position, was all on the side of America. It was worth some con cession on our part to induce the United States Government to join us in guaranteeing the in dependence of Central America; and, having obtained it by treaty, it ought never to have been lost sight of by this country. By Lord CLARENDON'S policy a pretext has been afforded to the American Government for departing from the principle. While we hold a few in significant islands, events are tending to the annexation of Central America to the United States territory. While grasping at a shadow we are losing the substance. Had a good u►►derstanding subsisted between the two Governments, they would have cordially con curred in measures for the instant suppres sion of WALKER'S buccaneering enterprise. The apathy with which this invasion of Nicaragua has been viewed by our Govern ment is inexplicable. We know that Lord CLARENDON has regarded it with displeasure, but we do not find that he has taken any steps to arrest it. The correspondence of the agent of Costa Rica throws some light on the secret proceedings of our Foreign office. On the part of that State Lord CLARENDON was applied to for assistance against WALKER. When told that a force of 800 men bad been raised to resist him, he exclaimed, " That was a right step," and when applied to on behalf of Costa Rata for arms, he obligingly told the agent that he might have 2,000 muskets from the War Department, at the price of 235. each for the inferior sort, or 50s. Bd. each for the Line pattern. Lord CLARENDON'S approval and sympathy went no further. Whether the agent, acting on the caveat emptor principle, inquired elsewhere and found the same article could be furnished cheaper, or whether Costa Rica would not furnish funds for so extensive a purchase, is not material. The arms were not supplied, and General WALKER has not to face muskets of British manufacture. The incident should not be lost sight of, as it indicates the kind of action which Lord CLARK-- DON thinks becoming the Foreign Minister of England. He allows it to be seen that he is ad verse to this paltry enterprise of WALKER: but he fears to take any decided measure for its suppression, or for vindicating the vital prin ciple of the Bulwer-Clayton Treaty. Should STAMPED .... SIXPENCE. UNSTAMPED..FIVEPENCE. the reported intellig,ence of the recognition of WALKER'S Government by the United States Cabinet prove correct, this country will have to make up its mind to abandon altogether that important principle of the independence of the Central American States firmly secured by a treaty only six years old, or engage in a war with America to maintain it. " RELIGIOUS" RADICALISM. THE most remarkable fact in the condition of the Ministerial party is the extraordinary antagonism of opinion between its ruling chiefs and their most inconsistent followers. In the present week this strange fact has again been visible in the debate on the Irish Church. Mr. Mum. represents the principles current amongst " religious Radicals." He is a " root and branch " man—unctuous, plausible, and fluent while speaking on the religious phases of a question, but shallow, inexpe rienced, and unpractical while trying to grapple with political realities. He fairly personifies, however, a school of a certain kind which blends together a traditions IPuritanism with a philosophy of religious nonconformity, and tries to give substantial strength to the compound by mingling it with the commercial utilitarianism of our time. Such an incon gruous mixture is not likely to be accepted by the people of England. In resisting the proposal of Mr. Mul.t to confiscate the Irish Church, Lord PALMERSTON made a Tory speech. He took up some posi tions which we were glad to see affirmed, though the Premier supported his arguments weakly. He asserted the eligibility of Church establishments for all civilised countries with a positiveness of manner that does not belong to the Whigs. He enforced, also, the neces sity of obeying the Act of Union ; but as he went so far to approximate to our side of the question, we think that it would have been ad visable for the Premier to have dwelt on the utter impracticability of overthrowing the Irish Church. It is not to be done except at the tremendous risk of rending the British empire asunder. For what would be the direct results from the abolition of the Irish Church? In the first place the "Act of Union" would be flagrantly violated in its most important regulations. If England has a right to set at nought the provisions of that great incorporating statute, so has Ireland. Therefore, if England can throw down the Protestantism of Ireland, on the other hand Ireland has a right, in that case, to set up her claim to a separate nationality of her own. Such a serious shock would thus be given to the whole Imperial connection that the empire would be placed in jeopardy. The subject must be considered as a closed one in British politics. It is whispered that the Whigs so consider it; and in point of fact the whole question was decided twenty vP- - since, when the before the Briti gallantly told he would take the Apostles of servative party Lord DERBY and followers, The subject of e " Appropriat' was fish the Ho 4! ' 4- • •- • aAk& issue upqa -411 1 With Indiffein ' ••• e F was for •• and hie— .944 as by - • ;- , ) f " *PPM • • . • ' ll '