The Press. — London, England, 1854-08-05 00:00:00

I 7 1 r7" 1 7 I E c 722 E without principle or following, obtained office mainly through an ostentatious parade of poli tical puritanism. The facts of Mr. LAWLEY'S case are by this time known to all England, anal the shall not dwell upon them. It appears t this young gentleman had been fe l. some years peat speculator, and consequently a loser, on the turf. Admitted to the secrets of Downing street, he did precisely what he would have done if, by dint of bribing a stable-boy, Of employing " touters," or any equally creditable manoeuvre of the " leg" kind, he had managed to secure early information as to the probable winner of the Derby : he made his book, and (unless much belied) helped certain of his confederates to make theirs. This, to the apprehension of ordinary capacities; is simple swindling. Setting apart the question of public policy, it is obvious that if a man bets with another (and stock-jobbing is only betting in a different form) on a supposed doubtful event, he having at the time certain knowledge that that event is already decided, he commits a fraud, which, being detected, exposes him not only to the forfeit of his winnings, but also to personal disgrace and punishment. The defence, or rather the excuse, put forward on Mr. LAWLEY'S behalf is worse than childish — it is a wilful confounding of right with wrong. His apologists plead that Mr. LAWLEY made no use of his exclusive intelligence, and that his having lost instead of won is a proof that he dealt fairly. Strange argument ! Are dis honesty and incapacity never combined ? Does every rogue make a fortune ? And how , (as the Times well asks) can a speculator help availing himself of whatever knowledge he may possess which bears on the subject-matter of his speculation ? The plea needs no refutation; it is simply preposterous; and, em nloyed by so skilful an advocat as Mextremer. GLD . . f the P k _ STONE, it furnishes a measure ol badness of his cause. Nay, the CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER himself—witness and coun le ... sel at once—let out in the former capacity what in the latter he ought to have laboured to conceal. There was a possible door, of escape left for Mr. LAWLEY. It might have been contended that his duties as private se cretary were merely mechanical, that he was entrusted with no great project• of finance, that • lie was an apprentice only, not an adminis trator, and that possessing no confidence he could have violated none. His acquaintance with the financial future might have been ex ' plained as the eaves-dropping of a clerk ad mitted to live on familiar terms with his em ployer, and gleaning a secret here and there out of random phrases carelessly dropped. In ' this way his offence might have been reason ably extenuated, a mercantile fraud repre sented as the results of a lucky conjecture, and a deliberate breach of trust reduced to an official indiscretion. But Mr. GLADSTONE has cut this ground from under his own feet. He himself acknowledges, nay, emphasises the fact, that the duties of Mr. LAWLEY were of a character unusually confidential and impor . tent. He argues thus, not blindly or without an object, but as an answer to those critics who quarrelled with Mr. LAWLEY'S youth and inexperience. Among such objectors we shall not be . numbered. Mr. LAWLEY is no mere youth Oviresh from college, and unversed in the ways of the world. He is an old hand, with ample experience of a particular kind ; na y , we will 't allow that as a governor, had fortune suffered him to profit by his appointment, he might have appealed successfully to the sympathies least ' - Australian society. )NE's plea; and in tat, in fact, stands in more implicit amC reposed, the more guilt of its betrayal. suggests itself, to found in the debate. . LAwtnis superiors the time when they her Majesty at the is in itself extra _ promotion facili- Lord ABERDEEN'S 8011 of little moment — reason why an im ' in a remote settle- /129•V0 a. y r ,........- ___ . of at least one class in Ai But NVP admit Mr. GLAD9TON ' admitting it we repeat what, • need of no proof, that the x intimate the confidence re aggravated becomes the guil One question naturally s which no solution will be foi . To what extent were Mr. L , T I • i tep4 t guilt, at the ,; '.. m itrN e present he 4, 4 - • e selection ''''•he : , ',AIO: , • 4. that his i t ,, „ . .,„A 4 ,, • ~ ce of Lor t ik. or 4 44 , . a matter c •\ . .': NA -, ha t gy‘ ., -•v, ' t 'visible re I,P ' r I li i' • ' : tire post i ....."' nadVas Air 4t .4 NI k THE PRESS ment should have been conferred on an un• distinguished subordinate. Sir G. GREY evidently felt this. His good nature, and a natural reluctance to reverse the ac of his immesilate predecessor, still a col league, prevented Mtn From annulling tiff) inchoate appointment of which he all but ad mitted in the House of Commons that he disapproved. The moment that unfavourable runtours reached him he appears to have instituted, an inquiry. bio suspicion of com plicity' rests on him ; but can the same be said for all parties concerned ? It is remarkable that the Ministerial. champions up to the very last moment maintained the language of injured and indignant innocence. They pooh poohed the reports which for days previous had been circulating through London, and to which the press had adverted in no dubious terms. They received Sir JOHN PAKINOTON'S notice with a cheer of derisive defiance. No means were spared to intimidate the assailant in the short interval that elapsed between his summons and their surrender. And the game, boldly played, was not a hopeless one. Many things are believed, nay, known to be true, which it would not be easy to prove in a court of justice ; and a man in Sir JOHN'S position might well have been excused if, through fear of risking his own reputation, he had left that of Mr. LAWLEY unattacked. But lie chose a wiser and bolder course. He persevered ; and so eager was the Cabinet to suppress his statement, that Sir G. GREY actually anticipated the accusation by speak ing out of his turn, in order at once to enter a plea of guilty on Mr. LAWLEY'S part. To talk, therefore, of a " frank confession" as being half a reparation is mere moonshine. There was no confession, no giving way, until exposure was at hand. Then, whether in fear lest something worse should come out, or for some unexplained reason, the acknowledgment of error was made : it was complete, and only the more humiliating for having been so long postponed. The whole business demands in quiry, and all the more so because this is not tht. first time that the Duke of NEWCASTLE has been caught at similar tricks. A wide distinc tion exists between a single questionable act and a succession of such acts. The gambler who throws sixes once is only lucky ; but if he does so four times running we begin to suspect foul play, and think of calling in the police. A shopman gives us a bad half-crown in change ; we take it back and accept his apology for the mistake: but such mistakes, if repeated again and again, assume a very different aspect. Let us consider, then, what this duke has done previously in the way of patron age. He appointed Mr. STONOR—of course in ignorance of the charges against him ' • and the appointment. had to be can celled, to Mr. STONOR'S utter ruin. He got a place in the Treasury for Mr. SADLEIR, and we know what has become of Mr. SADLEIR'S reputation. It was through his influence that Mr. O'FLAHERTY received a lucrative situation, and Mr. O'FLAHERTY is now in America, or in some other distant region, with a good deal of other people's money. Last comes the case of Mr. LAWLEY. What are we to think of all this? Those who read history, and who believe in the trans mission of hereditary qualities, will, doubtless, call to mind that the family of PELHAM, during one-half of the last century, stood prominently before the world, distinguished by the double characteristic of incapacity for statesmanship, and genius for jobbing. The race has not degenerated, and it is to its latest repre sentative, at a momentous crisis, that the military destinies of England are entrusted. , THE AFFAIRS OF SPAIN. Tits insurrection in Spain, iu attaining its successful result, has gone through the regu lar course visible in all Spanish movements. A bold adventurer raises the standard of re volt, he is joined by a portion of the military, and for a short time the civilians look on, while the destinies of the country are decided by the soldiery. Just its the movement has become successful it is joined by some banished Minister or forgotten favourite. SATURDAY, Old enmities are discarded, new friendships are formed, the Court vacillates and is van- quished, the victors enter Madrid in triumph, and the Cortes are to be convoked for the regeneration of Spain. In the insurrections by which Spain has been convulsed, a character of political action, widely differing from French revolutionary proceedings, may be observed. At Paris the civilians elways commence, and the military gradually join, while at Madrid the course is reversed. It would seem that the military body is most predominant in the discordant elements of Spanish society. if the soldiery begin the insurrections they also steady them and bring them to rapid conclusions, and thus there ought to be splendid materials in the Spa nish character for making a vigorous Executive, deriving its moral power from monarchical unity, supported by the sentiment of military honour. k dynasty of average energy might resuscitate the Spanish Monarchy by firm counsels, and by conduct that would rally the whole people under a patriotic sceptre. We do not, however, forget that the exagge rated forms of provincial localism in Spain interpose many obstacles to the wholesome vigour of a centralised Executive. Spain has often shown itself as divided by its provincial juntas as England under the Heptarchy. It is in these latter circumstances that ESPARTERO and O'DONNELL will find their main difficulties. Their junction promises that for a time there will be an exhibition of energy and public apirit. In proportion as it is purified the Executive will be power ful, and the recent scandals of the Court will give additional moral power to the rule of the successful military chieftains. How far the priesthood, thathates ESPARTERO, and conspired for his fall, will give in its loyal adhesion to 'the present Government, is a point on which definite information has not been received. The priests did nothing to save the country from Court scandals, and they would not add to their power by joining in any reactionary pro ceedings. Besides, though as mere individuals their influence is vast, their political authority has been greatly diminished in recent years, by their own divisions and ecclesiastical broils, as well as by other circumstances. THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF CONTROL. A CASE came under our notice some days ago which affords too remarkable an illustration of the manner in which Sir CHARLES WOOD governs India to be passed over. As it is one in which several members of Parliament have interested themselves, the fidelity of our sketch will be recognised without difficulty. Nor will the evidence we can thus appeal to be deemed less trustworthy when we state that these members are all habitual supporters of the present Administration. It happens that there is in England at this moment a native of India of illustrious birth who is allowed by all acquainted with the circumstances to have suffered grievous wrong at the hands of one of the subordinate Governments of India. Wearied of making fruitless appeals for redress there, he at last decided to come to England and apply for justice at the fountain-head. His large fortune enabled him to take this step without fa►lher inconvenience than the length of the voyage and a temporary separation from his family. On his arrival here his birth secured him ready admittance to distinguished society. While enjoying the pleasures of the metropolis, however, he did not neglect the business he came upon; but to all his complaints the India-house turned a deaf ear. While indi vidual members of the direction admitted the injustice he had been subjected to, they refused to afford him any redress in their collective capacity. What their reasons might be for this refusal they declined to tell him ; for at the India-house in all such cases sicvolo sic jobeo stet pro ratione voluntas is the rule of action. Finding that nothing was to be got from the Court of Directors, this Indian nobleman ap . pealed to Sir CHARLES WOOD; but, as Sir