« ПредыдущаяПродолжить »
the consistent Whigs: they were also ac- We cannot see in what manner a knowtuated by the general hostility to change; ledge of the circumstance, that the politiand several (Mr. Goulburn for instance) cal economists were intolerant, or bad who approved of the measure, opposed dogmatical notions, conduced to the formit with the view of thwarting Catholic ing a right decision on the subject of Irish emancipation. Some persons have won-freeholds; but the irrelevancy of this dered that such men as Mr. Bankes accusation is the least of the faults, with should stand forward on this occasion as which it is justly chargeable. the champions of popular rights: but to us it appears nothing surprising, that a man who has been all his life a determined opponent of all innovation, should oppose it on this occasion as on any other. If we have succeeded in laying open the springs of action which impelled both classes of opponents to say and do what they said and did against the bill, the reader will be able to make the application to the different speeches without our assistance, and we should have quitted the subject had there not been one passage in the speech of Mr. Brougham, which appears to us to call for particular animad
If, by the term "political economists," Mr. Brougham intended to designate any particular individuals, we would recommend him,-before he again vituperates the cultivators of a science, the first principles of which it would do him no harm to study, to consult Lindley Murray's English Grammar, from which he will learn the difference between nouns proper and appellative, and will be taught to avoid confounding classes with individuals. But if he include under the expression "political economists," all or most of those who have made the cultivation of that science their particular pursuit, we have not heard of any act which has emanated from these persons as a body; and we imagine that Mr. Malthus must have been somewhat surprised to find himself represented by his "valued friend" as having been "held up to public ridicule," by a class of philosophers, among whom he probably esteems himself to be not one of the least consider
We do not allude to the bitter complaint which he made, oddly enough, of the want of information, when there is probably no subject relative to Ireland, in respect to which the information was equally complete; nor to the still odder" reason that he gave for suffering the Irish freeholders to continue perjuring themselves, because officers in the army, mem-able. It strikes us, too, as rather odd, bers of parliament, and bishops, perjured themselves too; nor even to the excellent definition which he gave of the "natural "influence of property," when he defined it to consist in driving Englishmen by threats to go to the poll and utter a deliberate falsehood, enforcing that falsehood by the ceremony of an oath, to put a candidate into parliament of whom they knew nothing; of which influence he added that he did not complain, and that it must exist every where*. The only part of his speech which we have it in view to touch upon, is the unprovoked attack, which he went out of his way to make, upon "the political eco
that the act of "holding a man up to "public ridicule" should be regarded as proof of " a spirit similar to the religious "persecutions of other times." Religious persecutors have been wont to resort to tortures of a keener description than public ridicule: and is Mr. Malthus the first person who has been held up to ridicule for a "merely speculative" opinion?
To be serious, it is astonishing, that a man like Mr. Brougham should either be ignorant himself, or should count upon so extraordinary a degree of ignorance on the part of his audience, as to impute intolerance to the political economists: a class of men who are by nothing more distinguished, than by the mildness and "They were told by a class of men, who had urbanity with which their warmest discarried their dogmatical notions almost as far, cussions have been carried on: a mildand with a spirit similar to the religious perse- ness till then unknown in the history cutions of other times-he meant the political economists, who had held up a valued friend of his, of controversy; and forming a most strikMr. Malthus, to public ridicule, only because heing contrast with the bitterness and anidiffered from Mr. Ricardo on a mere metaphysical, not a practical point-that they ought to pass this measure,' &c. &c. Ante, p. 193.
* Ante, p. 193.
mosity which have characterized the disputes not merely of politicians and theologians, contending for power over the bodies or souls of mankind, but even of
the professors of purely abstract science, " land, remained the Oasis of the desert, for example the mathematicians: who in" and gave to the eye some points on which their controversies with one another, or "it could rest with pleasuret." It was with those who have impugned any of ludicrous enough too, to hear a man who is their doctrines, have on several occasions pocketing thousands a year by his opinions, displayed even more than ordinary arro- and who has nothing to fear from a strict gance, petulance, and ill-temper. He adherence to them but removal from a who was ignorant of all this, or knowing lower grade of emolument and grandeur it could charge the political economists to a higher, spout mock-heroics, and talk with dogmatism and intolerance, must have of martyrdom. merely taken up the first bad name which occurred to him, and without for a moment considering whether it was applicable or not, flung it at the heads of those whom he had a mind to assail.
We have not left ourselves space to comment at much length upon the two remaining discussions on the Catholic question. The subject was much more thoroughly sifted in these two debates than in the foregoing: we allude particularly to the speeches of Mr. Horace Twiss and Lord Harrowby, by both of whom the only argument was put forward which really goes to the bottom of the question, namely, that, for any mischievous purpose, the Catholics would not gain one particle of power by emancipation. Mr. Charles Grant was, as usual, honest and manly. The opponents of the Catholics begged the question against them, in all the old, and a variety of new ways: but their speeches were in every material feature so like those of their predecessors, that we need not waste any words upon them. The only speech deserving of notice on that side of the question was the speech of the Bishop of Chester: and this not so much from the merits or demerits of its arguments as from the lengths to which the right reverend prelate was hurried by the clerical esprit de corps, and the cavalier manner in which he treated all classes in Ireland, except the priesthood of the church," a priest"hood," (including, we suppose, the Honorable and Venerable Archdeacon Trench, and the Rev. Mr. Morrett of Skibbereen*) "which in the moral desolation of Ire
See the evidence of Lord Carbery (p. 603)
before the Commons' Committee of 1825; of Mr.
Blacker (p. 60, 61); and the Rev. Michael Collins pp. 375-7), before the Commons' Committees of 1824; and of Mr. O'Driscol (p. 233) before the Lords' Committee of 1824. See more particularly the evidence of Mr. Macdonell, before the Commons' Committee of 1825, (pp.759, 760), and the whole. For further information concerning the Oasis, see the evidence of Major Warburton (p. 147) before the Commons' Committee of 1824.
Hitherto what we have been mainly considering, in the different speeches, has been their arguments. The occasion now calls for another sort of remark.
In private life, no maxim, that has human conduct for its subject, is more universally assented to than the paramount importance of an inviolable adherence to truth. To charge a man with a disregard to truth is justly considered as the most flagrant insult which can be put upon him: and the state of mind which characterizes an habitual liar, as one with which no good or great quality can easily coexist.
It has however been long ago observed by Addison, that party lies are in a great measure exempt from this stigma; and that men who would sooner die than be guilty of the slightest violation of truth for their individual advantage, are ready, for the benefit of their party, to put forth assertions which they not only know to be false, but which they know cannot, in the common course of things, be believed by any body for more than a few days.
Whether matters have altered in this respect, since the days of Addison, is what we do not pretend to determine. Thus much, however, will, it is believed, be found to be borne out by a considerable body of modern experience: that what would be a falsehood anywhere else, is a justifiable piece of rhetorical artifice in the House of Commons; and that gentlemen, in all other respects of the most unblemished honour, and quite incapable of saying or doing any thing which is generally regarded as dishonorable, are in the daily habit of making assertions. in Parliament, which would infallibly lead an indifferent auditor to suppose that the convenience of an assertion for their purposes was a circumstance much more regarded by them than its truth.
It will be for the reader to judge, whe+ Ante, p. 240.
Mr. North: "Mr. Cobbett, who "within the last two months had become "the oracle of the Catholics, had desired
"ceived a sanction from the law. The Ca"tholics, however, had drawn out no "such list, BECAUSE THEY COULD NOT; NO "SUCH CASES OF SUCCESSFUL INJUSTICE
" EXISTING except in the heated imagina"tions of those who had fabricated them."
ther the assertions which we are now about to quote, belong to the class of assertions which we have just mentioned, or not. We will deal fairly by him and them;" them to make out a list of the eases in we will lay before him,-together with "which justice had been denied, or in the assertions, if not the proofs, at least" which oppression and violence had rean indication of the proofs, which lead us without hesitation to pronounce them unfounded. It is possible that the gentlemen to whom they are ascribed, may have been misrepresented by the reporters; if so, they are bound in justice to the public and to themselves, to disavow them. It is also, in the case of some of these gentlemen, just possible, that they may not have known positively that the assertions were unfounded, but only, not known them to be true. We shall be extremely glad to find that the gentlemen have been misrepresented. We bear them no ill will; on the contrary, we have for some of them individually great respect. In the code of party ethics, the stain may not be a very black one; but we confess it is one from which we would gladly see them freed.
Mr. Goulburn: "It had been said "that there was one law for the rich "and another for the poor in Ireland. If "that meant that there was a denial of justice to the poor man, HE BEgged to DENY THE FACT. With respect to magistrates, he would assert, and he de"fied contradiction, that THERE WAS NO "SUCH THING AS A DISPOSITION AMONG THEM TO TAKE BRIBES for the admin's"tration of justice to the poors."
To the above list, it is with great pain we add the following passage; which, however, is so vague and intangible that it can hardly be said to contain an assertion at all, consequently not a false assertion.
Mr. Brownlow: "The Protestant "gentlemen of Ireland, in the relations of parents, landords, and magistrates, FOL"LOWED the PRECEPTS OF THEIR
LIGION, BY studying thE GOOD OF ALL
"COMMITTED TO THEIR CHARGE, in a
OF JUSTICE WERE EQUALLY OPEN TO THE 66 RICH AND THE POOR, without distinction "of religious sentiments*."
"As far as
The same gentleman: "the experience of seventeen years' at"tendance on the Irish circuit enabled him "to judge, THE ADMINISTRATION OF JUS
66 TICE IN IRELAND WAS PERFECTLY PURE.
"He repeated that the administration of "justice in Ireland was perfectly pure, that "THE RIGHTS OF THE POOR MAN WERE EQUALLY RESPECTED WITH THOSE OF THE 66 RICH,
and that no distinction whatever was made between Catholic and Pro
The Earl of Roden: "tion of the peasantry of Ireland bad, he
conceived, been very much misrepre"sented. No SET OF PEOPLE ENJOYED
should have been confirmed in their opposition, from seeing the vile, selfish, and tyrannical pur poses to which it has been made subservient in the hands of arrogant and oppressive magistrates; and lest they should have formed their opinions
from the abuse rather than the use of this salu
tary law. Teach him, if he continue in the commission of the peace, that he must learn to administer the law in its true meaning, and not, as in the present case, torture it into an instrument of caprice or malevolence."
We quote from the speech of Mr. Spring Rice, ante, p. 127. See also, in the same speech, the energetic language of Chief Justice Bushe; language imputing to the Irish magistracy as a body, a degree of wickedness, beyond what any person in a lower station would have dared to lay to their charge.
OF THE (Before the Lords' Committee of 1825.)
MORE AMPLY THE BENEFITS "BRITISH CONSTITUTION THAN THE PEA"SANTRY OF IRELAND*.'
We shall not attempt to do what volumes would not do effectually, to present the reader with the original of this delightful picture: but we can at least tell him what to read. If he will peruse those passages in the Evidence before the Committees to which we are about to refer him, he will form some conception of the purity of the administration of justice in Ireland (we are not speaking of the superior courts), both in other respects, and in regard to the taking of bribes; of the benefits which no set of people enjoy more amply than the peasantry of Ireland, to wit, those of the British constitution; and of the manner in which the Protestant gentlemen of Ireland follow the precepts of their religion, by studying, in the character of landlords and magistrates, and we will add, grand jurors, the good of all committed to their charge. We have inclosed our references to the most important passages within brackets. The authority of any one of these witnesses may be cavilled at; but we recommend to the reader to count them.
(Before the Commons' Committee of 1825.)
Mr. O'Connell, pp. 51, 55, 56, [60, 61]. Col. Currey, 297, . Major Gen. Bourke, 324, , 326, 327, 330, , 339, . Rev. John Keily, 397. Rev. Thomas Costello, , 418. Mr. Rochfort, 446, 448, . Mr. Kelly, 521, [522, 526]. Mr. Barrington, 578. Lord Carbery, . Mr. Currie, . Mr. Godley, 741.
(Before the Commons' Committee of 1824.)
Mr. Leslie Foster, pp. 55, , 65.
(Before the Lords' Committee of 1824.)
Major Willcocks, pp. 54, 55. Major Warburton, . Major Powell, 109. Mr. Nimmo, [131, 132, 159, 163, , 179. Mr. Becher, 134, , 139. The Duke of Leinster, 204. Mr. Macarty, 219. The Marquis of Westmeath, 228, 229, 230, 231. Mr. O'Driscol, [233, 234]...
But, infinitely more than all these, let him read from beginning to end the evidence of Mr. Macdonnell, of Ballinasloe, before the Commons' Committee of 1825: that part of it which relates to magistrates, that part of it which relates to of it which relates grand juries, that part to illegal tolls, and other illegal charges, and that part of it which relates to tithes. He will find there-it is not safe to tell
him what he will find: let him read for himself.
Among the minor proceedings of the last session relative to Ireland, none are of sufficient importance to require notice, with the exception of Mr. Hume's motion concerning the Irish church, and the debate to which it gave rise
As this was only a motion for inquiry, we are not called upon to give any opinion on the expediency of a revision of the Church Establishment of Ireland: a Mr. Blacker, pp. [60, 61]. Major large subject, and one upon which we Wilcocks, 101, , 113. Major War- shall have other opportunities of stating burton, 164. Mr. Becher, [183, 184, our opinions, at greater length than our Mr. limits would have enabled us, on the 185]. Mr Leslie Foster, 242. We shall Justice Day, [253, 257, 258, 259, 264]. present occasion, to afford. Mr. Newenham, 306. Mr. Macarty, content ourselves, then, with an examina[328, 329, 332.] Rev. Michael Collins, tion of the grounds, on which the House 335, 336, [337, 371, 372, 373, 374, resolved, that there was no need of in375, 376, 377]. Mr. O'Driscol, 381, quiry. [383, 384, 385, 396]. Dr. Elmore, 417]. Dr. Church, 424, [429, 430]. Mr. Lawler, 441,,442, 443.
* Ante, p. 147.
The only speaker against the motion (Mr. Peel said but a few words) was Mr. Canning. His arguments were two. One was, that a revision of the Irish Church Establishment was contrary to the Union:
completely demolished in the masterly speech of Mr. Brougham, who pointed out the inherent distinctions between the revenues of the Church and private property, and the consequent inapplicability of such a term as spoliation to any mea sure for regulating their amount. Spoliation,-whatever be meant by spoliation, must at any rate be spoliation of somebody. The spoliation in question, if such it is to be called, would not be spoliation of the present incumbents, since it was proposed to leave their incomes untouched: it would not be spoliation of their children, or heirs, since these would not have got the incomes, and therefore cannot lose them. No man, no person, no actually existing being would be deprived by the proposed measure of any thing which he has, nor of any thing which he is entitled to expect. Of whom then would it be spoliation? Of an ideal being; a mere imaginary entity: an ab
Having no better arguments than these, it is no wonder that Mr. Canning should have had recourse to the old expedient of "flinging dirt." It is the characteristic of a bad cause to resort to such helps, as it is of a good one to have no need of them.
The first argument is defective in two ways: in the first place, because, as was remarked by Sir Francis Burdett in his pointed answer to Mr. Canning, the Act of Union is not a law of the Medes and Persians; in the next place, because, supposing it were so, the opponents of the motion failed, on their own shewing, in making it out to be a violation of the Union. It is a mockery to say, that, in merely enacting that the churches of England and Ireland should be united in one Protestant Episcopalian church, to be sub-stract idea: a name, a sound. It would, ject to the same laws, it was ever intended in one word, be spoliation of nobody. to tie up the hands of the legislature from introducing any reform into either, which might render it more conducive to its object, or to the good of the state. Mr. Peel attempted to bolster up this flimsy argument, by referring to that article of the Union by which it was provided, that the Irish bishops should succeed in a certain order to seats in Parliament: this he called recognizing the number of bishops; and so it was: recognizing the actual number; recognizing it as being the actual number: but not surely as a number never to be altered, should any other number be, in the opinion of the legislature, more eligible. Is a law to be construed as giving perpetuity to every thing, the existence of which it takes for granted as a fact, and provides for the consequences of it accordingly! If there had been a provision in the Union to regulate the right of pasturage upon a common, or of cutting turf upon a bog, would it have been a consequence of that provision, that the common should never be ploughed up, the bog never drained? If a man had bound himself by a contract to give his footman a livery, would he by that contract have debarred himself from ever parting with his footman?
The other argument, which turns upon the words property and spoliation, was Ante, p. 270.
Scotch Judicalure Bill. THE mode of administering justice in this country, is so far from being what it ought to be; the progress of improve ment, in this department, is so slow, and impeded by so many obstacles; that it is matter of great interest and instruction to watch every alteration that may be called for and effected in any part of the empire. We consider it a duty, therefore, to point out what has been done by the Scotch Judicature act, which passed the legislature last session.
In order to make the matter intelligible to an English reader, it will be necessary briefly to describe the judicial establishment in Scotland; at least as far as regards civil matters.
The Court of Session at Edinburgh, is the supreme court of civil judicature, from which there is no appeal, except to
the House of Lords. This court is composed of fifteen judges, called Lords of