The Press. — London, England, 1854-08-19 00:00:00

AUGUST 19, 1854. " bent of the chapel of St. Alexis, Kentish " town," he avowed the authorship of the letters. Thus Doctor WISEMAN, with all his " infallibility," had placed himself in the un pleasant position of mistaking his antagonist and vilifying another person. By an apology, however, it might have been easy to repair the damage that he had inflicted on Mr BOYLE. Let us see what Doctor WiSEMAN actually did. He allowed the case to go to trial. The plaintiff (Bons) placed the whole matter before a jury, and challenged his antagonist to justify the libel. He even subpcenaed the Doctor, and tried to get him into the witness box. The counsel for Dr. WISEMAN (Sergeant SHEE) objected on the technical ground that a witness must not criminate himself as the author of a defamatory libel. The point was ruled in favour of the defendant, and the plaintiff then vainly endeavoured to produce legal proof of the publication of the original libel against him. The manuscript of the letter of Doctor WISEMAN could not be ob tained. Its publication in the Tablet was printed from the handwriting of one 3f the literary staff upon that journal, and, on the mere technicality, the plaintiff, Mr. BOYLE, was baffled ani nonsuited. Observe the facts. The plaintiff was libelled by the defendant; Mr. BOYLE calls upon his accuser to substan tiate his malignant accusations ; by the advice of his counsels the doctor puts only one plea on the record, " Not guilty,' avails himself of one point of law to escape being sworn, and of another point to avoid the consequences of the libel, and leaves the court without offering any reparation to the injured plaintiff. Whether that plaintiff was guilty or not of the imputed negligence and insubordination imputed to him we have no knowled*, but we have the important fact that, until within a very few days of the trial, he WAS allowed to officiate as a priest, when Dr. GRANT, the Romanist "Bishop of Southwark," refused him permission in his " diocese," as he (Bovfx) was bringing the "Cardinal" into court. So far the ease was bad enough, but there were also some other very unfavourable dis closures. Mr. BOYLE endeavoured to extract evidence of the publication of the libel from the above mentioned " Bishop of Southwark," and also from a certain " Father Ignatius," known in former times as the " Hon. and " Rev. GEORGE SPENCER" (brother of the late Earl SPENCER), hut, though these gentlemen had within the last month been in communi cation with " the Cardinal" on the whole sub- ject of the action, it appeared that they were troubled with most oblivious memories. We also get peeps at the interior of Dr. WISEMAN'S very peculiar establishment, in which Mon signor SEARLE, " an Englishman with a foreign " title," acts as private secretary to the " Car " dinal Archbishop of Westminster," helped by a certain Mr. REES GAWTHORNE, whose name will be familiar to some of our readers in connection with a remarkable correspon deuce with a dignitary of the Church of Eng land. The absence of candour on the part of Dr. WISEMAN, the craft and subtlety employed by himself and his clerical confederates, and the manner in which be extricated himself from the consequence of his attack on Mr. Rom, have left upon ourselves even a more unfavourable impression than we had derived from his antecedents. In the whole case his conduct was thoroughly unworthy of an Eno Hallman, and was Romanist to the very last degree. And such is the man to whom the Court of Rome, as if to show the farce of in fallibility, has confided the religious interests of the Roman Catholics of England ! And, still worse, such is the man whose arrogance and audacity were aided and abetted by some of our present Ministers of the Crown ! THE O'FLAHERTY CASE AGAIN. THE old adage " when rogues fall out, drk.," has been rather amusingly exemplified since our last publication in the proceedings at a Police-office in Dublin. We then stated that the information respecting the O'Flaherty ease was incomplete. Something has been added since. The Duke of NEWCASTLE'S con- THE PRESS. fidential friend—Mr. GLLDSTONE'S special com- missioner—Sir JOHN You No's nominee—the gentleman for whose veracity, honour, and accuracy the Solicitor-General for Ireland pledged himself in the House of Commons— has been accused of no less a crime than forgery; and his accuser is the Solicitor- General for Ireland ! The affair is somewhat graphic and charac teristic. Two gentlemen, bearing the signi ficant names of SALOMAN and LAZARUS, were captivated by the tempting signature of the Special Commissioner of Income Tax affixed to a bill, and . by the scarcely less alluring en- dorseinent of the Solicitor-General for Ireland. There was no resisting such a bait—one of Mr. GLADSTONE'S Exchequer Bonds would have been nothing to it—Messrs. SALOMAN and LAZARUS forthwith paid down their 4501., and, no doubt, considered themselves happy in hay ing such high officials as customers. They may have expected—and, for aught we know, may have obtained—certain collateral advantages in connection with Schedule D. ; at all events, it is to be hoped that the prcfits of this little transaction were not rated for their income tax. We wish Mr. FITZGERALD had interrogated them a little upon that point. Mr. FITZGERALD, however, was malicious enough to ask Mr. KEOGH, the Solicitor General for Ireland, whether he had ever been engaged in any bill transactions with Mr. O'FLAHERTY. The Solicitor-General for Ireland engaged in bill transactions ! Mr. KEOGH was indignant. " Certainly not." But second thoughts are best : he had once—only once—received pay ment from Mr O'FLAIIERTY by a bill for money due to him. The examination was cut short, perhaps properly, by the magistrate in the approved form, " Have you any further questions to ask ? " We own we should have liked to have probed the matter a little further. Here, at all events, we have proof from the Solicitor-General for Ireland him • self that Mr. GLADSTONE'S special com missioner, to whom, as a man of honour, the people of Ireland were invited by Mr. GLAD STONE to entrust the secrets of their properties, to whom, as a man of integrity, was committed by the public the power of determining the amount at which each and every person was to be assessed, with all the absolute and irre sponsible authority which the seal of secrecy conveys,—we have this man convicted, we may say, of wholesale forgery of the most deliberate and audacious nature. This is the man whom Mr. GLADSTONE ventured to vindi• cate by alleging that a whisper against him as regards his public conduct had never reached him. We can easily believe it. If considera tions were given, or• bills accepted, or• little innocent transactions, like that with Mr. KEOGH, cushioned, and if assessments conse quently were improperly and fraudulently reduced by this immaculate public officer, is it likely, we ask, that a whisper of such malversaf•ion would reach the CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER? And is it uncharitable to suppose that the man who forged the Solicitor- General's name, who forged his colleagues name, who forged the names of his intimate friends, who resorted to such means for raising money, could have hesitated in adopting the more easy and less hazardous mode of malversation which the opportunities of his office presented ? We aver that the public have an interest in the character of every public officer ; that it is the business and duty of a Minister to make himself ac quainted with the antecedents and charac ter of the person he appoints ; that to appoint in wilful ignorance to offices of trust is to appoint corruptly ; and that Mr. GLADSTONE, though he disclaims it, is responsible for the frauds and malversations of Mr. O'FLAHERTY. We believe that the character of a Govern ment may be fairly judged of by the character of their appointees—and that SADLEIR, STONOR, LAWLEY, and O'FLAHERTY, indicate the public virtue of the Duke of NEWCASTLE and the CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER. 771 EDUCATION IN INDIA: WE gave last week a short analysis of the Education Despatch of Sir CHARLES WooD, We pointed out the futility of its provisions for the purposes professedly in view, and we promised to submit our own ideas of the measures to be adopted if we would Euro peanise in intellect and feeling the people subjected to our sway in India. We showed that, as regards the numberless different vernacular languages of India, all hope of con veying to the natives through their medium a knowledge of the literature, the arts, and tbe sciences of Europe must be abandoned. One might as reasonably found colleges for the cul tivation of the vernacular languages of the aboriginal tribes in New South Wales. The first step towards Europeanising the native intellect of India must be that which DWAR- KANATH, ZAGORE, and RAMMOHUN ROY, and other eminent natives have adopted—the cultivation of the English tongue. The simple reason why the knowledge of our language is not more prevalent in India is, that little inducement has beet► offered to the people for its acquirement. As far as such inducements have been offered there has been no lack of readiness to respond to them. At the Presidencies, where the public offices, the supreme courts of judicature, lawyers clerkships, and merchants' counting-houses afford a tolerable field for the employment of natives versed in English, the applicants for place have always been more than ade quate to the demand ; and if a similar sup ply is not to be found in the interior it is because there is no demand in those locali- ties, the India Company insisting on adopting a contrary practice in its offices there to that followed at the Presidencies by the Crown. The result is that hardly any natives in the bite, for study English : the public offices arc tilled by men ignorant of all but the vernacular dialect of the district; the selection for em• ployment is confined to them ; and every collector's and judge's office throughout the land is thus made a centre of organised nepotism, partiality, and corruption. The imperfect knowledge of the vernacular usually possessed by the European functionary renders him dependent to a great extent on his subordinates, who take advantage of his ignorance, and avail themselves of their local connection for the purpose of combination, to answer their own ends and escape his con trol. If we wish to induce the natives to study English we must break up these local monopolies of office, make our own lan guage the language of office throughout In dia, and, having done so, open the path for employment to all. This was what the Mogul conquerors, our predecessors in rule, did in respect to their language, and an almost universal knowledge of Persian throughout India was the result. The natives were thus introduced to the whole range of l'ersian and Arabic literature, the noblest gift that in the then state of human enlightenment could be bestowed on them. At the same time, the Moguls fixed by this proceeding the founda tion of their empire so deep in the soil that it took centuries to shake their authority; while we, on the contrary, if expelled from India to morrow, would hardly leave a trace of our dominion behind. But, while thus establishing their language as the language of office throughout India, and so making its acquisition a necessity to the learned, to the wealthy, to the polite, and to those who would engage in the public ser vice, or aspire to the prizes of public life, they were just and generous enough to afford ample means for the acquisition of it to all. Colleges and schools were en dowed to teach it, and there was no con siderable town, and, in many parts of India, scarcely a village, without an institution in which it might be learned. Authorship in the language was liberally encouraged. Learning was honoured and rewarded, and, the prizes of public life were open to the educator of every degree. At the same time unity of action was secured, local combinations put an end to, and the most effectual super- cation with " the Cardinal" on the ject of the action, it appeared that troubled with most oblivious men also get peeps at the interior of Dr very peculiar establishment, in 1,1 signor SEARLE, "an Englishman wi " title," acts as private secretary ti " dinal Archbishop of Westruinst by a certain Mr. REES GAWTHO name will be familiar to some of in connection with a remarkable deuce with a dignitary of the Chu] land. The absence of candour or Dr. WISEMAN, the craft and subtle by himself and his clerical confer the manner in which be extrica from the consequence of his att Bony., have left upon ourselves unfavourable impression than we from his antecedents. In the wh conduct was thoroughly unworth3 Hallman, and was Romanist to t degree. And such is the man I Court of Rome, as if to show the fallibility, has confided the religi( of the Roman Catholics of Eng still worse, such is the man whom and audacity were aided and abet of our present Ministers of the Cr THE O'FLAHERTY CASE THE old adage " when rogues f has been rather amusingly exern our last publication in the pros police-office in Dublin. We tiler the information respecting th 4 ease was incomplete. Somethin added since. The Duke of NEWT