The British Association is holding its annual conference this week at Glasgow. The meetings seem to show a little falling off in attendance, which is accounted for in some quarters by the rival attractions of the Glasgow Exhibition, which has proved a wonderful success, particularly from the financial point of view. In the interest of its papers and discussions, however, the great parliament of science shows no falling off. Professor Ricker, the President of the year, devoted his address to a brilliant defence of the atomic theory, which, after holding the field for nearly a century, has encountered revolt on the part of some very eminent chemists. Among the sectional presidents, the most interesting addresses have been delivered by Sir John Gorst in the new Educational Section, Dr. Mill in the Geographical, and Dr. Goffen in the Statistical. Sir John Gorst occupies a rather curious position; as Minister for Education for more than six years, he cannot boast of having done much for the cause which he professes to have so much at heart. He has really never made any secret of the fact that the recognised Conservative policy in regard to education is far from being' altogether to his liking, and yet he constantly surrenders his judyment to his colleagues in his apparent resolve to cling to his office at any cost.
The Roman Catholics and the King's Declaration.
Another conference which has attracted a, good deal of attention is that of the Catholic Truth Society, presided over by Cardinal Vaughan at Neweastle. One of the principal subjects of discussion was of course, the King's declaration against, Transubstantiation. The Cardinal Archbishop declared that he entirely and frankly accepts the decision of the country that the King must be a Protestant, but he defends to the full the action of the Roman Catholics which prevented the carrying of the Bil to amend the declaration which was introduced into the House of Lords last session, He docs not want to amend the declaration by taking away the offensive epithets; he wants to abolish the declaration altogether: not, however, because it does any harm, but because it is an insult to his_ religion. It does no harm because "No engagement, no promise, no oath is lawful unless the thing promised or sworn to he just, right and true." This pronouncement has naturally created a Protestants, It ix interpreted as meaning cat deal of dixcussion—at least, among
that a man is perfectly justified in breaking an oath if he subsequently becomes convinced that it was an unjust oath, No one would, of course, contend that. would be the duty of a sovereign to main. tain a denunciation of the doctrine of transubstantiation if he should become convinced of the truth of that doctrine but there is an alternative to repudiating the oath. Having accepted the succession to the throne on the terms imposed by the Constitution, he could, of course, abdicate if he found it' impossible conscientiously to fulfil those terms. Since the Roman Catholics practically refuse all compromise on the subject of the declaration, and demand nothing short of its abolition, it is quite certain now that the Government will let things remain as they are, and make no further attempt to meddle in the matter.
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.