The Press. — London, England, 1856-11-22 00:00:00

NOVEMBER 22, 1856. defended. If General WILLIAMS' speeches, or rather his silence, be justifiable, then must General KMETY'S narrative be a falsehood. There must be plenty of persons able and willing to give an opinion on the subject. Let them by all means come forward and see that justice is done upon whichever be the real delinquent. With regard to the Turkish subalterns, the ease is much the same. General KMETY men tions by name several who exposed themselves to the Russian fire with undaunted coolness, and led on their men with high, soldier-like bearing. Is this an invention, or is it reality ? Are we for ever to dw€ll in a region of doubts and shadows concerning the events of the past three years? Has the Eastern love of fable infected the matter-of-fact European mind? Which of the two generals is romancing on the present oecasion; is it both, or is it neither ? Does General WILLIAMS really believe that it was himself who repulsed the Russians, and not General KMETY? Exoriare aliquis. Come forth some eyewitness, and tell us the truth about these things. THE WHIGS AND THE IRISH JUDICATURE. Ix will not be possible for the Government to overlook the facts about Irish judicial pro- motions which have been recently brought forward in our columns. The subject is not " a mere Irish one." Its importance makes it of imperial consideration, for England is pro foundly interested in the proper constitution of the Judicature of the empire. We shall to-day adduce some new and special views of this serious case, and we request attention to facts which cannot be disputed. Since the year l8:29 the promotions have been open to Roman Catholics, and not a solitary instance has occurred of a Roman Catholic of distinguished ability being passed over in legal promotion in Ireland. Of that fact we have never complained, nor are we displeased with it. But what we do complain of is this (and until the system be decisively changed we shall continue to raise our voice against it), namely,—first, that the possession of intellectual and legal merits, whatever they may do in securing private practice to Pro testants, has (according to Whig precedents) not the least influence on public patronage ; and, secondly, that the profession of the Roman Catholic faith, and support of the political creed of the Church of Rome in Ireland, are held to be sufficient passports to office for those qualified only by second-rate claims. We shall set these two grievances in a gl.aring light before the public mind. Take the Bar employed on the O'CONNELL trial. That case engaged the talents of the men who were considered to be the most eminent in the profession. There were retained for the Crown (along with the law officers) Sergeant WARREN, Mr. BENNETT, Mr. HOLMES, Mr. NAPIER, Mr. BREWSTER, and Mr. TOMBE, all gentlemen of great position in the law—and all those gentle men were Protestants. There were also re tained for the defence, Mr HENN, Mr. WHITE SIDE, Mr. FITZGIBBON, and Mr. MACDONAOH— aII Protestants. Not one of those ten Protestants, though some of them were unrivalled at the bar in their special qualifications, have since been advanced to the Bench ! Sergeant WARREN was one of the greatest ornaments in the profession. Grave, suave, and dignified, his mariners invited the respect universally conceded to rare learning and attnietive eloquence. Mr. HENS, in range of power, was second to no man at the bar. Mr. BENNETT, not long deceased, was for twenty years leader of the Munster Circuit, and realised a great fortune. Mr. HOLMES Was a great orator, whose name will live in the annals of the Irish Bar. The abilities and research of Mr NAPIER, and the powerful eloquence of Mr WHITESIDE,are acknowledged and admired at both sides of the House of Commons ; and the talents of Mr. BREWSTER are certainly very considerable. Yet not one of those eminent persons have been elevated to the Bench. THE PRESS. But let us now mark a still more striking illustration of the active injustice committed by what we fear must be called " the pro " Romanist and platform system " organised by the Whigs. Along with the four Protestant barristers retained for Mr. O'CONNELL'S defence, there were six other barristers, who are to be placed on the Roman Catholic and the pro-Romanist interest. There were Messrs. Moons and HATCH ELL (Protestants, and perverts to Whig gery at an advanced period of their lives) ; and of Roman Catholics there were Mr PIOOT, Mr. MONAHAN, Mr. O'Hoo,ts, and Sir COLMAN O'LOGHLAN. Each and every one of those last six gentlemen have since received judicial appointments! These facts are formidably strong, but stronger still remain. _ _ Take the high -treason cases. Mr. WEITESIDE, Mr. BUTT, and Mr. FRANCIS FITZGERALD were leaders for the accused; three Protestant Queen's Counsel. Take the great Mount garrett case, recently tried, where a title, ten thousand a year, and family character were all at stake. In that extraordinary case, Messrs. BREWSTER and WHITESIDE were on one side, and Messrs. Burr and NAPIER on the other ; or take the " Wilson case," Mr. BREWSTER, Mr. MARTLEY, and Mr. NA PIER on the one side ; Mr. WHITESIDE and Mr. DENOGH on the other. In those cases all the lenders were Protestants. In fact, wherever life or property are con cerned (and then one may take for granted that the selection is made solely with refer ence to ability and learning), the very men who are the first chosen, and placed by clients in the foremost rank , sire those who are ex cluded by the " Liberal " policy from all hope or chance of judicial preferment. Thus " the system" exhibits the twofold injustice of the neglect of the higher merits, and the partisan preference of the less meritorious. The facts advanced by us are beyond con troversy, and they are pregnant with infer ences of momentous impertinence. A Warren and a Bennett were allowed to go to their honoured graves, while Mr. BRADY was made a Lord Chancellor over their heads, and Mr. HATCHELL was sent to Parliament as Attorney- General, to keep up the fame of the Irish Bar. These are facts that lacerate the feelings not only of Protestant working barristers, but of Protestant households throughout the length and breadth of Ireland. The system is gross, coarse, unfeeling, and unjust; and we say to the Queen's Ministers in Downing-street and Dublin Castle : Pudet oppmbria robin Et dici potuisse, et non potuisse refelli. THE CASE OF MR. HENRY CORT. IT was a question much mooted among ancient casuists whether a man could injure himself. If some of those persons had existed during the last two centuries, and been located in the British Islands, they would have had abundant opportunities of obtaining a prac tical answer to their query. They were fond of regarding individuals and nations as coun terparts of each other ; and in so far as the British people may be considered as one man we can have no hesitation in saying that it has very frequently injured itself; for a man can do himself no greater injury than to deter people from endeavouring to serve him, and our conduct as a nation towards public bene factors has decidedly for many generations been the reverse of encouraging. One of the most flagrant instances of the in justice and oppression to which the British inventor is liable will, if the alleged facts are true, be found in the case of the gentleman whose name stands at the head of our article. These facts have been so recently before the public that we shall content ourselves with a very brief recapitulation. Mr. HENRY CORT, of Gosport, about the year 1780, invented that process of preparing iron which was in universal use for the subsequent 1107 sixty years. Up to the time of his invention we had been dependent upon Norway and Sweden for all our wrought iron, England not possessing sufficient supplies of wood to fur nish the charcoal which was necessary for the old-fashioned process. What we then paid to these countries was about a million and a half per annum. Let any reader reflect on the increase in our demand for that metal which has taken place since the end of the last cen tury, and he will have some remote idea of the extent to which Mr. CORT, by enabling us to make our own wrought iron, has benefited the finances of the country. Mr. CORT patented his process, and the leading ironmasters of the country contracted to pay him ten shillings per ton on all the iron so manufactured. In an evil hour for himself Mr CORT entered into partnership with a Mr. ADAM JELLICOE, of the Navy Pay-office, London, who, becom ing a defaulter in his accounts, deposited with the Navy-office the patents and contracts be longing to his unfortunate partner. What was done with these documents, or to what account they were turned, is a mystery ; for at JELLICOE'S death, a few years after, the defalcation hal only been reduced from 27,500/. to 24,8461., though the contracts were bringing in from 15,0001. to 20,0001, a year. For this balance of 24,8461. Mr. Cola was held answerable, as JELLICOE'S partner ; his pre inises and machinery were seized, and he became a ruined man. Fourteen years after Mr. PITT allowed him a pension of 2001. a year, and at his death his two unmarried daughters received pensions almost too pitiful to mention-201. a year each. We should also not omit to add, that since the facts have come to light through the public press, a pen sion of 501. a year has been granted to the sole surviving son of the Gosport manufac turer. But this cannot be accepted as the slightest mitigation of an injury which in - volves more than as many thousands. We should, probably, rather prejudice than advance the claims of Mr. CORTE; family, by raking up long-forgotten scandals, and en deavouring to account for the disappearance of the patents and contracts. Whatever might have been the motive which prompted their destruction, there can, at least, be no doubt of the terrible wrong done to the in ventor. During the eleven years that his patents lasted, while in the hands of the Government, the profits must have exceeded 200.0001., yet his children are now penniless, while notorious public delinquents left large sums to their posterity. The moralists tell us that virtue is its own reward. Public virtue, we presume, is an ex ception. Science devoted to the public is certainly its own punishment. Mr. CORT, for saving to this country an outlay of 500,000,000/., was mulcted in the sum of 240,0001.; for he lost a considerable private fortune in addition to the profits of this discovery. And gentle men under whose management 200,000/ dis appeared from the public accounts, were rewarded to nearly as great an extent as Mr. CORT was punished. The concluding words of Mr. COAT'S petit tion are as follows Your petitioners, therefore, humbly pray that your Honourable House will be pleased to institute such inquiry as may lead to an adequate provision for their declining years, a reward commensurate with the gratitude of a great nation to its benefactor for having added to its wealth five times the cost of the late war, and saving be sides sixty millions yearly (a sum progressing and in creasing) ; that when rewards and honours are scattered with liberal hand, and festivities inctituted to celebrate peace, it may no longer go forth to the world, and be re echoed by foreign tongues, that the Government of the British empire have underrated for more than half a ctn. tury, the services of one who has so prodigiously enriched his own country by leaving two of his aged daughters to exist on small pensions of only 191. per annum each ; and his only surviving son. your petitioner, with one other daughter wholly destitute of any pension whatever. We sincerely hope that this inquiry will be accorded. The question has now gained a publicity which makes it as important to the country to prove the falsehood of Mr. Coax's statement, it' false, as for Mr. CORT'S children to prove it true. Let us either make restitu tion manfully, or relieve ourselves at once from the stigma of such treachery and in. justice as the annals of State corruption would be hard pressed to rival.