The Press. — London, England, 1857-06-20 00:00:00

596 plishments entitle him to be called " honour able and learned," even if he were neither a Member of Parliament nor a barrister. The failure of so able a man in proving his case shows the weakness of his cause. He cited a long passage delivered in the heat of debate by Sir C. WETHERELL to the effect that an oath would be no security. But au opinion de livered arguendo is not of authoritative efficacy, as Mr. DEASY must well know. It is not what Sir CHARLES WETHERELL thought, but what others now think upon it, that is to be regarded; and if Mr. DEASY will consult " Hansard " for 1833, the Honourable and Learned Gentle man will find that Dr. LUSHINGTON, in the first year of the Reformed Parliament, taunted the Irish Romanist M P.'s with their apparent oblivion of the oath they had taken. Mr. DEASY also shivered his arguments to fragments when he attempted to reason against the utility of the oath by referring to the dif ferent constructions put upon its obligations. The same thing would occur in any oath of a " security " character; the same line of reason ing might be taken against the utility of any oaths at all. We can easily conceive besides, how, without the slightest impeachment of their personal honour, gentlemen like the late Mr. SHED., or Mr. JOHN O'CONNELL, would be unconsciously prejudiced in their construc tion of the oath. Mr. StIEIL was second only to Mr. O'CONNELL in his championship of the Romish cause in 1829. For years previously the practical question had been whether " Emancipation " should be " conditional" or " unconditional." " Give us securities," said the Protestant opponents of " Emancipation." " We'll have no conditions," said the violent party of the Roman Catholics. The cause of " Emancipation " had lost ground in England at the general election of 1826, but the death of the Duke of YORK, and of the Earl of LIVERPOOL, the declining health of GEORGE IV., and the fact of the next heir to the Crown being a " pro-Romanist," naturally altered the relative strength of the parties, but by no means changed the principles at issue. Sir ROBERT PEEL characteristically yielded to the " pressure," but fortunately the oath now discussed was exacted from the Romanists entering the Legislature. Mr. O'CONNELL, Mr. SHEIL, and their friends boasted that they had carried Emancipation without conditions, achieving what the old advocates of the Romanists, BURKE, GRATTAN, and Fox, had failed to gain. But their boasts were false. The " Roman Catholic Oath "is a condition of the first importance, as we shall show in a few sentences. Against the political prejudices of the anti- Church Dissenters, we admit that the Oath in question is no security. If the people of England, through their representatives in the House of Commons, express a desire to abolish the Irish Church, the Act of Union may prevent their wishes being carried out, but this Oath could obviously interpose no obstacle. In another way, moreover, it acts with potent efficacy. It does check the active zeal of Romanist levellers; it does tie up their hands, and it weakens their influence considerably, in case they are rash enough to bring forward motions against the Established Church. They do so in face of their oath, and we are therefore forewarned. It is true that they may find titular Protestants to act as their deputies, and raise motions to serve the Romanists, but even in that case we know the puppets, and who pull the wires. The Duke of NORFOLK, a zealous Roman Catholic, feels and confesses that the oath is binding. So does Mr. FAOAN, the Member for Cork, and biographer of O'CoNNE Li., a gentleman of high character, large wealth, and identified with " agitation " for many years. With the old agitators of the O'Connell and Sh e il s t amp it was a point of honour to boast of " unconditional Emancipa tion," but in England we know better. " Emancipation" was conditional, and the abolition of the forty-shilling freeholders in Ireland must be accepted as at once a con stitutional, political, and even legal proof of the conditionalism on which " Emancipation " was conceded in 1829, Finally, there is one consideration of supreme importance on this subject. The question has often been ignorantly asked, t' Have wo a Protestant Constitution or not?" THE PRESS. Asjong as the Roman Catholic Oath is enforced that question must be answered affirmatively; but if it were cancelled, a dangerous advan tage would be given to those who, for insidious purposes, would adopt the negative side. We trust, therefore, that no false sentiments of a spurious Liberalism will ever be permitted to loosen the securities enacted on the conces sion of the Roman Catholic claims. FILLIBUSTERISM. IT has often been remarked that the American Government and the American people by no means exhibit the same unity of action as we observe in the nations of Europe. Like their own white servants, the Yankees will only render a qualified obedience to the authorities set over them. Masters and servants are equals—and so are the governors and the governed. The consequence is that when any difference of opinion happens to arise between them, the citizens of the United States, in stead of having recourse to our system of petitions and public meetings, and orderly agitation, which would imply an acknowledg ment of subjection, boldly lake their own course, in defiance of law, Congress, or Presi dent. Had England, for instance, been America three or four years ago, and the people imagined that Lord ABERDEEN was dilatory in the declaration of war, instead of noisy meetings and empty resolutions, we might have expected to hear of an expedition fitting out at Southampton or the Orkneys, and the subsequent seizure and pillage of Odessa or St. Petersburg. Such is the origin of what is familiarly known in this country as fillibustering ; and what constitutes its danger is that such expe ditions almost always represent a considerable amount of popular feeling. The conviction that the whole continent of America is one day to fall under the dominion of the United States is so strong in the minds of the masses, that the Government is unable directly to control it ; and, consequently, such men as General WALKER, though particular acts of barbarity may be disapproved, are not likely to meet with that wholesale execration which they deserve, and which would alone extin guish the breed. WALKER'S expedition to Nicaragua was from the very fast regarded with sympathy by a large number of the inhabitants of the United States; and the decided success which attended his career as leader of the Democratic party in the civil war procured himself still more important encouragement. Rulers arc but men ; and American rulers arc not of course strangers to the aspirations of their countrymen. What they disapproved of as representatives of law, and international right, they secretly admired as citizens of the great American Republic ; and as soon as they could decently do so they extended a qualified recognition to the Government of the successful soldier who had pushed for ward the national supremacy into new regions. There can be no doubt that Colonel WHEELER, the American Minister in Nicaragua a t th e period of Wauczn's occupation, must have acted upon instructions from his Government when he formally acknowledged the regime of the military adventurer; and that the latter thus acquired a certain degree of moral strength which the vigour of his arms alone could never have obtained, Thus openly supported by the American people, and virtually by the American Govern. ment, WALKER'S position about a twelvemonth ago wore every appearance of security and permanence. But, led on we suppose by the destiny of all military Governments, the neces sity of flesh conquests, in an evil moment for himself he was induced to invade the neigh bouring State of Costa Rica, which had refused to acknowledge his dynasty, and maintained a vigilant and warlike, though we believe neutral, attitude. Here the conqueror of Nica ragua at length found his Russia, and, after a desperate struggle, has been compelled to re linquish his prey and abandon his prospects of empire. Now it is very difficult to say what conclu sion is to be drawn from the recent overthrow of this man. We fear it would be decidedly premature to imagine that it indicates any SATURDAY, decay of the aggressive spirit in America, or that his own crimes have met with their just retribution. We should be loth to predict that his restoration is impossible, or indeed, on the whole, improbable. Before his attack on Costa Rica, his Government had at all events introduced a reign of security to which the Central American States had long been stran gers, and it does not appear very distinctly who is to take his place. No doubt, his recent atrocities will for a time rob him of the support of all but the most degraded of his country men ; but these sort of crimes are soon glossed over, and, in the state of society which exists in but too many parts of America, cannot be ex pected to excite as much detestation as in London and Liverpool. It remains to be seen to what extent the personal brutality of General WALKER will diminish the admiration accorded him as an efficient propagator of the Monro doctrine. We would fain hope, though we are not very sanguine in the matter, that fillibusterism has received a check. Better a thousand times a regular and protracted war on a grand scale than these licentious and piratical descents upon neutral territories. When one country is sufficiently strong to conquer and civilise another, and the latter sufficiently weak and disorganised to be so conquered, the act, how ever unjustifiable in individuals, may be a blessing to the people at large; but just that superiority which allows of invasion and pil lage without permanent settlement is an un mitigated curse. HIS ROYAL HIGHNESS PRINCE ALBERT'S EDUCATIONAL CONFERENCE. THE arrangements for the Educational Conference over which his Royal Highness Prince Albert is to preside have been completed, and a large number of distinguished persons from all parts of the country have intimated their intention of being present. His Royal Highness will take the chair at the opening meeting, which is to be held on Monday next at three o'clock, at Willis's-rooms—the Eatl Granville, President of the Council, acting as vice-president. On the following day the various sections will meet at the Thatched-house Tavern, when the following papers will be read, and other matters discussed:— SECTION A. Chairman, the Bishop of Oxford; secretary, the Rev. F Watkins, one of her Majesty's inspectors of schools. Miss Carpenter—" Oa Juvenile Delinquency." The Rev. Moses Mitchell, one of her Majesty's inspectors of schools—" On the evidence afforded by the reports of her Nfajesty's inspectors as to the early age at which chil dren are taken from school." Mr. Flint, late assistant diocesan inspector in Derby. shire, and organising master of the National Society—" On the same subject, with reference to schools nut under Government inspection." Mr. Herbert hlackworth, inspector of mines—" On toe age at which the mining population begin work." Mr. W. H. Hyett—" On the results of the educational census." Mr. W. Goodman, chairman of the Birmingham Educa tional Association—" On the result of returns from Bir mingham, showing the degree in which labour and idleness respectively interfere with education." SECTION B. Chairman, Lord Lyttelton7 secretary, the Rev. J. D. Glennie. M .A. Mr. Joseph Kay—" On the age at which children leave the elementary schools in various countries of the conti nent of Europe." The Rev. F. C. Cook, M.A., prebendary of St. Paul's Cathedral—" On the schools of Germany." SECTION C. Chairman, Sir J. K. Shuttleworth, Bart. ; secretary, the Rev. Nash Stephenson, M.A., incumbent of Shirley, near Birmingham. The Rev. Nash Stephenson—" On the result of prize schemes." On the result of prize Mr. Seymour T and certificate schemes." SECTION D. Chairman, the Very ltev. H. P. Hamilton, Dean Salisbury ; secretary, Mr. John Thackeray liunce. Mr. Alexander Redgrave, Jnspector of Factories—" On the operation of the halftime scheme in factories." The Rev. C. H. Bromby, Principal of Cheltenham Train ing College—" On voluntary half time schemes." Mr. J. Symons—" On industrial training as an adjunct to school teaching." Mr. Horace Mann—" On Civil Service competitions as a means of promoting education." The Rev. P. Marshall—" On factory education, with suggestions for improvement." The Rev. E. Girdlestone, canon of Bristol—" Will an improvement in the dwellings of the labouring classes have any influence upon the value which they attach to the education of their children, and can any uPe be made of the electoral franchise in the same direction ?" His Royal Highness will preside at a final meeting, which will be held on Wednesday, June 24, at Willis's-rooms, when the reports from the various sections will be made.