The Press. — London, England, 1856-04-05 00:00:00

316 known about the characters of the Sadleirites as there is now. At that time Mr EDMUND O'FLAHERTY bad not gone on a mission to the Levant. But we must also call on them to recollect that the Committee of the House of Commons pronounced no opinion at all upon the charges then brought forward. The Committee, in point of fact, had been nomi nated to examine charges of the Times against the L•ish Members in general, about dealing in official jobbery. The Committee, as has before been seen, declined to report upon the public and political life of the Solicitor- General. When asked by Mr. G. H. MOORE, before the Committee, how he could justify his public acts, after the pledges he had given, Mr. KEOGH answered, " That he did not intend " to be catechised in ethics by any member of "the Committee." There is not, indeed, in the whole story of the Sadleirites, a more characteristic episode than the way in which inquiry was evaded in this case; and this is the proper place for stating it, in order to explain why these grave matters must again be scrutinised. When the Sadleirites violated their pledges, and accepted office from the Coalition, there was a burst of indignation from the popular ranks, and twenty-two of the independent party refused to sit on the Ministerial side of the House. But these gentlemen were not well calculated for eminent parts in Parliament. They had not the faculty for prompt speaking ;—they had placed reliance on Mr. JOHN SADLEIR, Mr. Km:wit, and other persons, and they bad no fancy for following the guidance of Mr. FREDE RICK LUCAS, or Mr. GAVAN DUFFY, whose ante• cedents did not well qualify them for ruling a connection in the House of Commons Mr. GAVAN DUFFY was a vigorous writer but an un practised debater. He had the indiscretion to make heavy charges of a serious kind against an entire class of members. Nothing could be more maladroit, and nothing could have served more the purposes of those who wished to evade inquiry. On May 5, 1853, Mr. DUFFY stated : I do not think that iu the worst days of the Walpoles and the Pelhams more scandalous corruption existed than I have seen with my own eyes practised on Irish mem bers.—Hassard, Third Series, vol. 126,p. 1191. It is remarkable that Mr. VINCENT SCULLY at once interposed, called to " order," and asked, " Was such language to be tolerated ?" Then came on an Irish " row," and several Mi. nisterialists who had not been accused were indignant. This was exactly the event that could serve most the Sadleirites. Impeach a whole class at any time, and the guilty indi viduals will escape. Nothing, indeed, could be worse managed than that attempt to bring the Sadleirites within the scope of those rules which have hitherto ruled the Executive and governed the Parliaments of England. CENTRAL AMERICA. THE region called Central America is com posed of the five independent States of Costa Rico, Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua, and San Salvador. Of these, Honduras is only a port . . a of the whole territory known by that name, and it is sometimes called Spanish Honduras, to distinguish it from British Hon duras, or Belize, a tract of country ceded by Spain to Great Britain in 1783, and consti tuted a British colony seven years afterwards. In the bay of Honduras lie six small islands, known as the Bay Islands—Ruatan, Bonaca, Utilla, Barbaretta, Helena, and Morat. These were first taken possession of by the British in 1642, and though at intervals our authority has been in abeyance, no other nation has ever formally occupied them. These islands, in consequence of a declaration by Mr. CLAYTON in July, 1850, to which we shall presently ad vert, were, on the 10th of August following, constituted by Colonel lironEttorsx a British colony under the designation of the Bay Islands. The Mosquito territory was never conquered by Spain at all, and is now governed by native kings under the protection of Great Britain. THE PRESS. When it was first proposed to unite the Atlantic with the Pacific Ocean by means of a canal through Central America it naturally became an object of importance to Great Bri tain and the United States that neither Power should possess exclusive control over the line of communication. This was the origin of the Clayton-Bulwer treaty. The particular clause of this treaty, which is now giving rise to so much discussion, is to the effect that neither Great Britain nor the United States should "occupy, fortify, " colonise, or take possession of the coast "of Mosquito, or any portion of Central " America, whether in their own right, or in " right of any protection they might or did " afford to any people or State in Central " America." It is this clause which the Ame ricans allege us to have violated. But when we come to examine the instances they bring forward of this violation, the whole ground of their complaint shrinks into a very narrow compass. Our seizure of Greytown, in right of our protectorate over the Mos quitoes, was before the Clayton-Bulwer treaty, and cannot, therefore, he a violation of it. While the protectorate itself, as well as our settlement at Belize—alleged by the Americans to have been granted us by Spain solely for the purpose of cutting logwood and mahogany, and not intended to convey any imperial rights—is no concern of the United States at all. Spain is, in reality, the only aggrieved party; and if Spain is acquiescent, why are the Americans to bluster? They have neglected to take offence for more than half a cen tury, and it is idle for them to do SO now. The only real question then at issue is, whether, when Mr. CLAYTON declared that it was not the intention of his Government to include " the islands in the vicinity of Hon duras " within the terns of the treaty, he meant to designate the Bay Islands or not. Mr. BUCHANAN now declares that he did not, and contends that by " islands in the vicinity " was only meant certain small coral reefs near the coast, that the Bay Islands were never dependencies of Honduras, and that by occu pying them as a British colony Colonel WODE HOUSE acted in direct contravention of the treaty. But if the words of the treaty are not suffi ciently conclusive on this point, one would imagine that, at all events, Mr. CLAYTON and Sir H. BULWER must have understood what was meant by exempting the islands in the vicinity of Honduras. If, however, they really cannot agree, there never could be a case more exactly adapted for arbitration. No angry pas sions have yet been aroused ; no inherent rights are put forward by either party ; no great principle is involved which neither would be willing to compromise ; no such case, in fine, exists as those in which the only appeal is confessedly to the sword. When an inde pendent State is invaded—when subjects rise against their Sovereign—when great passions are aroused—then, indeed, arbitration is out of place; the battle must be fought out. But will any one contend that the present diffi culty is not of the very pettiest description ? Mr. CASS, forsooth, denies the propriety of arbitration ; because, he says, no one can tell us the meaning of the word " occupy" better than we know it already. Very likely ; but that is just the reason why it is a case for arbitration, instead of why it is not. It is just for such points as these that arbitration was instituted. We must not confound an arbi trator with a judge. The duty of the former is not to pronounce which of two parties is originally in the right. To tell us in this case what the word " occupy " means is precisely what he has not got to do. His business is to settle what amount of concession may fairly be demanded from each of the two litigants. But this is, of course, a compromise; and every compromise implies the surrender of the original point at issue. We don't want an arbitrator, then, to tell us what " occupy " means; but we want an arbitrator to get us out of the scrape. There are two hopelessly conflicting interpretations of the same word, and neither party will bear to have their own overridden. The arbitrator then steps in, and says, " I don't pretend to say, Gentlemen, " which of you is in the right, but I should " recommend you, as ,the fairest way of ►S- AT URDAY,II •` settling it, to do so and so." Let us hope the Americans will see the common sense of this view, and not insist on fighting where neither material advantages nor moral princi ples are at stake. MR. JUSTICE KEOGH. THE antecedents of Mr. KEOGH have been so frequently described in English and Irish journals, that the public had a right to expect that Government, even if their own necessities prompted them to raise him to the Bench, should at least have instituted some inquiry into the political charges that are now daily accumulating against him. Men of ordinary minds would have thought that a barrister aspiring to the unsullied ermine of the Bench would, in the face of such accusations against his public name, have lost not a moment in defending himself. The absence of such a defence from Mr. KEOGH'S own lips goes far to substantiate the charges. The Irish Bar are to a man indignant at the disgrace that is to be saddled on them ; the English Bar have little less reason to com plain, for a common bond of honour and in dependence, a joint abhorrence of anything with even the semblance of political dishonour, a common sense of what is due to themselves as gentlemen, and to the p'tblic who trust them, have long been distinguishing charac teristics of the profession. If independence and untainted honour are gone, the Bar lose their all ; what then can be the position of the Bench? It is greatly to be desired, for the sake of public confidence, that Mr. KEOGH should clear himself of so grave an obloquy ; that Lord PALMERSTON should not consent to initiate so great a wrong; that the public should protest against so extraordinary an appointment There are many who desire that those upright men who are about to become, against their will, the colleagues of this political huckster, and the Bar whom he bad quitted in 1847, should unite to condemn this reckless insult to the dignity of the profession. But " the end is not yet." When JOHN SAD LEIR was made a Lord of the Treasury,there was only a private protest, and no public demon stration ; but those who appointed him have been held responsible to public opinion ; and EDMUND OTLAHERTY'S nomination also re dounded to the discredit of his patrons. Mr. KEOGH'S career has not yet terminated, and Fortune oft en elevates to a lofty height those for whom it reserves a most exemplary fall. Of one thing we are satisfied, that there are swarms of honourable men at the Bars of both England and Ireland who would scorn to climb to the Bench by the wretched arts of a political adventurer. There are promotions which undignify a profession ; and it is an act of Machiavellian government to degrade first, in order to destroy afterwards. For some years past there have been open proofs that certain persons wish to promote centralisation, and to have only one Bar for England and Ireland, and in order to carry out this scheme the Bar of Ireland must be destroyed. It is too strong to resist sudden shocks, but it can be damaged by degrees; and, as precursory to a course of bitter almonds for the Irish Bar, the appointment of Mr. SADLEIR'S political ally may not be without a deeper design than that of silencing the Cerberus of Athlone. HER MAJESTY'S BENEVOLENCE.—Amongst the numerous acts of kindness displayed by her Majesty towards the wounded soldiers from the Crimea, the public will be gratified to learn that, at her own private expense, the Queen has commanded Mr. Heather Bigg, of 29, Leicester-square, the well known anatomical mechanician, to construct arti ficial legs and arms for nine men, whose severe mutilation attracted her Majesty's notice during her recent visits to the hospitals of Portsmouth and Chatinau. A tenth man, suffering from injured vertebrae, has been graciously presented by her Ma jesty with a spinal instrument. By this gracious act of the Queen the whole of these ten men are now rendered capable of fulfilling any employment suit able to their condition.