The Press. — London, England, 1858-05-01 00:00:00

412 tiun is nothing. Take official patronage from its present possessors—the question still remains, to whom are you to transfer it? Open competition for certain posts under certain conditions diminishes, but no means exhausts, Weld iffioulty. In truth, public opinion is the only agency at once potent and subtle enough to pervade and purify the whole system. The votes of constituencies, the independent action of honest members of Parliament, and, above all, the influence of the press, must be the real sources of Administra tive Reform. Had electors been loss easily cajoled by the venal declamation of trading patriots, we should have had a house less accessible to corrupt motives, and less prone to connive at jobbing. Had Members of Par liament of advanced " Liberal" views been less read) to support a rapacious Whig oligarchy in their monopoly of place, from a vague hope of bribing them to acquiesce in organic changes, wo should have been less devoured by the locust and the palmer-worm, the Elliots, Greys. and Phippses. Lastly, had the public press generally canvassed appoint ments, not on party grounds, but on their own intrinsic merits, honest Ministers would have found encouragement in well-doing, and even the most profligate would have hesitated to promote a notoriously unprincipled or inca pable dependant.. Thus far the present Ministry contrast most favourably with their predecessors in the disposal of their patron. age. If the people of England really wish for Administrative Reform, they should show them selves not insensible to this contrast. And as to the press, what can be more strange, more unjust, than that among the thousand and one " leaders " in which the two India Bills have been canvassed, only here and there one should have noticed the fact that Lord ELLEN 1011OUGH'S Bill seemed rather to shun than to seek patronage, while that of the late Govern ment aimed at creating and grasping it by wholesale ? Surely our " Liberal" contemnpo• varies owe something to public principle in this respect I "AN OVATION." " ST. MARTINIALL, Long acre " (we state it on high Radical authority) was on Wednesday night " the scene of a glorious demonstration in favour of the Liberty of the Press " We may also state (on the authority of Mr. EDWIN JAMES, Q C.) that that gentleman then and there enjoyed an " ovation " "for having per " formed his duty conscientiously and fear " lesslv as an advocate." In simpler phrase, some hundreds of persons met together to declare the legality of certain publications held by the law-advisers of the Crown to be libelous ; and at that meeting Mr. E. JAMES was very loudly cheered for his success ful defence of Dr. BERNARD, and made a speech gratis thereupon. Nov, as to the meeting, and the " Press Prosecution Defence Fund," (the contributions whereto, strangely enough, are not advertised in the report), and the admirable lecture" of Mr. SLACK on the divine right of publishing pamphlets in favour of tyrs.nnicide—these are topics with which we should have been little disposed to meddle. The meeting might be very harmless, and was cer tainly very obscure ; as little fit to represent the real opinions and feelings of the London public as the " three tailors of Tonley-street " to be the spokesmen of the people of England . It may, indeed, appear inconsistent, and some what indecorous, in one breath to laud the in dependence of British juries and to pretend to dictate the verdict of one not yet impanelle I ; but the mistakes of very insignificant bodies can do little mischief. So with regard to the " document " which Mr. SLACK prepared with so much care " in accordance with the wishes ' of many gentlemen ;" it was probably almost as eloquent and fully as rational as most of the effusions of pinchbeck patriots who ails- THE PRESS, MAY 1, 1858. take notoriety for celebrity. But the appear ance of Mr. E. JAMES on the stage gave a graver character to an otherwise farcical performance. Ho is a man of acknowledged ability, and has attained considerable profes sional eminence, if not of' the most desirable kind. He had very recently done his worst to give to what we doubt not was the con scientious verdict of an English jury the air of a deliberate affront to a great continental Sovereign. Yet, ill-judged and out of taste as had been his harangue on the trial of Dr. BERNARD, we tried to make allowance for his position as an advocate, and for the strong temptation to say anything, however remote from the real issue, which might possibly in fluence the feelings of a juror in favour of the prisoner. But Mr. JAMES in " St. Martin's hall" is no longer a privileged person : ho can plead neither haste nor excitement in ex cuse of intemperate language, and his vulgar claptrap and arrogant self-laudations degrade the legal profession, without even the chance of serving a client. In the name of the legal profession we protest against the whole tone and spirit of his proceedings at the " demon stration" aforesaid. After acknowledging the cheers of the enlightened assembly, which he styled "an ovation," on the same principle as DICKENS'S Bath footmen called the leg of mutton and turnips " a swarry." Mr. JAMES proceeded to say :—" It was known that he " had refused the offer of the Crown to prose " cute Mr. BERNARD, and that he had received " much less remuneration," &e., &a. Let that pass ; perhaps he merely intended to relieve his client from an overwhelming burden of gratitude. As the old epigram has it— To James T owe great obligation ; Bat John unhappily thought fit To publish it to all the nation. Sure James and I are more than quit. But after these few preliminary flourishes, Mr. JAMES forgets, not himself—that might have its advantages—but the demands of public decorum, and the etiquette of a profession which he does mot adorn. " The judge never "dared to tell the jury what the law of England " was," &c., &c. In fact, Mr JAMES denied the jurisdiction, about which Lord CAMPBELL had no doubt, and the full benefit of the doubts so raised was reserved to the prisoner. By what a gross, what an invidious misstatement does " the learned counsel" distort this fact! But " we shall have more anon " " He took the "first opportunity of telling the public that Mr. " BERNARD was innocent of the crime laid to his "charge " Touching candour I amiable frank ness We " take the first opportunity" of telling Mr. JAMES that his declaration is super fluous or impertinent. What his notion of innocence may be, is by no means clear. But those who 1131 d that BERNARD was justly ac quitted on the evidence will not think that such a declaration adds much to the weight of the verdict; while those who hold that the jury were unconsciously misled by political sympa thies, will feei their opinion strengthened by Mr. JAMES'S evident inability to disentangle his Radicalism from his law. If, however, Ile means, not that the evidence was insufficient to convict the prisoner, but that he had not done what was laid to his charge, we say that the statement is as unwarrantable in substance as it is irregular and unprofessional in form. The Learned Gentleman's word may be as good as his bond ; hut he will find his endorsement quite insufficient to give cur rency to Dr. BRRNARD'S ridiculous defence, that he prepared half a dozen infernal machines, not with a view to any particular attempt, but as a sort of material subscription to the cause of Revolution in general ! We shall not follow Mr. JAMES through his programme of • the lecture which he was " going to deliver before a special jury and " Lord CAMPBELL," or sound the abysmal bathos of his announcement " that the ap- " plause which had been accorded him that " evening was the most gratifying acknowledg• " ment an advocate could receive." But we must avow the pain—we had almost said the IR disgust—with which we read that Dr. BER* NARD was the next star of the evening--.“ c a ll e d " for and enthusiastically cheered" while the tones of his unscrupulous advocate were yet " rife and perfect " in the ears of the assembly. The whole affair wears too much the aspect of concert and prearrangement; betrays too much of political sympathy between the Eng. lish Queen's Counsel and the professed conti- nental conspirator. We protest against this mode of identifying the advocate with the prisoner—it is a step cowards the " handy " handy, which is the justice, which is the " thief?" Still more earnestly do we protest against educated men, holding a recognized social status, lending a sanction, by proceed ings like those on which we have commented to that unfortunate misconception which leads our neighbours and allies to regard us not merely as giving involuntary asylum to con spirators and mauvau sujets, but a 3 en couraging them by our countenance and our sympathy. A JEWISH ENGLISHMAN, OR AN ENGLISH JEW? THE two opinions, with regard to this an cient nation, which divide the Conservative party, may be, we fancy, described by the two phrases we have placed at the head of thin article. There are those who expect, and desire, that the Jews wit.) reside in England should gradually become Eng lishmen ; and there are those who do not expect, or wish, that they should ever be any thing else than Jews. In Tuesday's debate, the Marquis of LONDONDERRY and the Bishop of CASHEL seemed to represent these two classes. We will describe the two views somewhat more at length. The English nation is a mass compounded of various races. Some we have who appear to be of the blood and family of the Ancient Britons. Others bear unmistakeable marks of belonging to the Saxon race, and date their origin, doubtless, from the times of the Hep tarchy. Many families bout of their Norman lineage, and are proud to think that they " came in with the Conqueror." Others date from the Revocation of the Edict of Nantes, when their forefathers were among the French refugees who landed on our shores. The accession of Wicciast 111. brought us some Dutch families, and a few Hanoverians came over with the Elector. All these different races are now merged into one nation, and all lay claim to one general title, " the people of England." Now, it is apparently thought, by some friends of the Jews, that they too may follow the same course, and become, in a few generations, entirely fused into the general mass known as " the British nation." The second class, however, while they take an entirely opposite view, would not willingly admit that they fall at all behind the former class in regard and veneration for the Hebrew people. They think, indeed, as the Bishop of CASFIZI. said, that they love and honour th• Jews far more than some of their warmest political supporters. But they have derived certain views from Holy Scripture, of the future destiny of this anaent nation, which are altogether at variance with the idea of making them Members of Parliament, Mayors, or even Churchwardens. As to " fusion," which is evidently expected and desired by many who advocate their ad mission to Parliament, the teaching of I - 101)' Scripture seems wholly opposed to such an idea. Even ERSKINE could emphatically cite the isolation of the Jewish people, through