The Press. — London, England, 1856-03-29 00:00:00

MARCH 29, 1856.' receiving pecuniary help to go into Parliament, must sound strangely to those who believe that an Attorney-General should be selected from the leaders of the Bar. At his next election, also, when (in 1852) he stood as the Brass Band candidate, this ornament of the Bar of Ireland had to em ploy EDMUND OTLAHERTY to get him more pecu niary help. It seems, however, thathis agents in formed him in 1847, that " matters could not " go on at all unless the financial affairs of the " contest were placed on a more satisfactory " footing," and it was arranged that the late Cabnel Small, a zealous Conservative, who had credit at the Bank of Athlone, should draw bills for six hundred pounds on Mr W. KEOGH. That was accordingly done, but when the bills fell due, they were protested ; and in the course of business the following remarkable letter was written by Mr. KEOGH, and read by him before the committee in 1854 (the italics are our own) : Mountjoy•equare, 26th M irch, 1814. My dear Colonel,—Your letter is, like all your former words and actions, kind to a degree towards me, and I freely admit under somewhat trying circumstances. lam most anxious that you should do as you say. I feel con• fident that if we come to London at once we shall get the funds. I know Mr. [the name was omitted before the committee] has done a great deal, but I can show you that I have expended of my own money over 2,0001. Now, if I had not done so, all that Mr. did in the borough would have been lost. I have given up my profession and it prospects to achieve this victory, and the result is that I am embarrassed. I should not be so if I could get money upon landed property ; and, to make a long story short, if you come over and induce Mr. -- to lend me money upon a perfectly sufficient estate, I will pay everybody and Then he will maintain his influence and lose nothing. That is an extraordinary letter, and more par ticularly when taken in connection with his subsequent politics. Mr. KEOGH had quitted his profession in 1H47, and was in " trying circum stances" in the following year. He had gone into Parliament, and " given up his profession and all its prospects." He could not take up the bills drawn upon him for 6001. by Colonel SMITH. He wanted another loan of money, and Mr. , by doing so, would be enabled "to keep up his influence." What do these facts show but the case of an utter adventurer ? Now, if Mr. WILLIAM KEOGH had faithfully adhered to Conservative Catholicism, or if he had started in the Liberal ranks, and con tinued in them, or even if he had changed his political conduct at a great crisis, in company with other men of the same opinions as him self, we would not press this letter against 111111. SHERIDAN was mixed up in pecuniary difficulties; but SHERIDAN for twenty years stood by the co ours of a hopelessly ruined party, though he might have "hid his head in a coronet," if he had rallied to the side of the Crown and Mr. Pm. But here we have to deal with the case of a public character in a constant chrysali s in his political creed. Mr. KEOGH was first ()Von nellite and public panegyrist of Lord MEL BOURNE'S Ministry, then a Conservative Catholic, then a Conservative Member of Parliament, who had " given up his pro. fession and prospects," then a waverer, then a voter for Lord PALMERSTON (at a moment when the whole Conservative party was again united), then an independent Brigadier, with the bold EDMUND O'FLAHERTY canvasQing for cash for him " privately " in England, and then a Brass-band man. Changes in the public life of such a man demand attention, and we shall bestow it upon them. But, as we have quoted his letter to Colonel SMITH when he was a Conservative Catholic, let us see what the "confidential" EDMUND O'FLAHERTY wrote for the Attorney-General when he was a Brigadier. Addressing Mr. Swim M.P. (then Sheriff of London), he wrote (the italics are our own) : My dear Sheriff,—You were kind enough to say that you would be glad to unite with the other friends of Mr. Keogh in contribution t o t h e f und for defraying the expenses of that contest, now inevitable, which his services to our 14 pasty ( Our party !" ) have provoked. If you will kindly pay in, as speedily now as possible, any subscription you may desire to giie'to the credit of Sir Henry Bedingfield and Jour SADLEnt, M.P., trustees of the fund, or to me, it would THE. PRESS. be most acceptable, and applied by them at once to the pur pose of preparing for the contest.—Yours very sincerely, dear Sheriff, EDMUND O'FLAHEILTT. Appended to the foregoing letter was a list of the subscriptions, which ran thus :—" SID• " NEY HERBERT, EOM ; Lord ARUNDEL, 501.; " VINCENT SCULLY, 50/. ; H. INGRAM, 50/. ; " CHARLES TOWNELY, 501. ; JOHN SADLEIR, 100/." Thus Mr. SIDNEY HERBERT and JOHN SADLEIR were at the head and tail of the supporters of Mr. KEOGH ! And such was the eminent Irish bar rister, who had given up his profession in 1847 ; who, after five years' adventuring in the House of Commons, was actually placed, with the help of the Duke of NEWCASTLE and JOHN SADLEIR, above the heads of all the talent, learning, and eloquence, and " reputable " character of the Bar of Ireland. We have a right to say that such are not the antecedents to be expected in an Attorney- General for Ireland. When raised to so great an office, a barrister should be in the highest rank of the Bar. His practice should be large, and his experience vast. The Government of Ireland is too critical to be intrusted into the hands of a mere proficient in coarse invective. The career of Mr. KEOGH personifies no idea, and represents no political jrinciple, and there should be prodigious merits to atone for such defects. Mr. KEOGH has actually attained more official influence, and a loftier station, than were given to the late Mr. SHELL Surely, facts such as these cannot be with out their significance ! ENGLAND. " To see ourselves as others see us " is a gift for which nations might pray as well as indi viduals. It has been the good fortune of this country to have a mirror held up to it by one of the most able, best educated, and best de scended men of the sister kingdom ; and well will it be for her if she at once, and with gratitude, recognise the likeness. The most profoundly suggestive work which has ap peared for the last quarter of a century can not be adequately dealt with in the columns of a weekly journal. We must be satisfied with directing the attention of our read era to one or two salient points, the study of which cannot fail to conduct them into much the same channel of thought as has been traversed by M. MONTALEMBERT. If we turn exclusively to politics, what is the broad difference, exceptis excepiendis, be tween England and continental countries? The answer is, bureaucracy ; and it is pre cisely this which many Englishmen have lately prcfessed to admire, and for which very exalted personages are not supposed to enter tain an unqualified dislike. Bureaucracy has produced triumph both in the field and in the closet—bureaucracy has won Sebastopol, and bureaucracy has tranquillised France. Then why is bureaucracy bad? Bureaucracy linked to despotism—and with out despotism it is nothing—is the system which tends towards the production ofa nation of clerks. By it is repressed the healthful action of the moral organs, which is as neces sary to moral health as the action of the phy sical organs is to physical health. In Eng land, as now constituted, . every man has free dom of speech—every citizen has liberty to discharge the legitimate functions of citizen ship. Every man's enthusiasm (and every man has some) has its vent. Without this, disease must as inevitably ensue . as it does in the corporeal frame when its natural conditions are in any way interfered with. If England, then, stands almost alone in herlabnegation of bureaucracy, in what does the cause consist? It is to be found in the existence of an order wholly independent of the Crown or people, which is nevertheless willing to devote its energies to the service of both. The English aristocracy is, as a body, too wealthy to care for the m Are pecuniary advantages of office, and it has kng ago risen superior to that sickly vanity which led the old French aristocracy to barter their inherent 291 right of governing for a ribbon and a royal smile. But a class which has either repu diated, or been prevented from, the exercise of its duties, will not long retain its power. The French aristocracy, thanks to the short sighted policy of RICHELIEU and Louis XIV., has been eliminated from the society of France ; and no order now exists which, like the land between two seas, can prevent the fusion of the two extremes into the wide level of either despotism or anarchy. The loss of this body, which had balanced the Sovereign and the people, has rendered bureaucracy not only possible, but necessary. No class is left to fulfil its duties but paid officials ; its inde pendence is succeeded by the servility of greedy placehunters, and its patriotism by those whose country is their pocket. But we English are perpetually taunted with a comparison of the results. Behold, it is said, the influence of one pervading master mind,—the unity of conception, the harmony of preparation, the rapidity of execution. As in the cave of the Cyclops every workman keeps time with his fellows—in technical lan guage, every file sings : li multi vi brachia tendunt In numerum, veraantque tenaci forcipe ferrum. Whether the " bolts of Mars " or the arts of peace be the object of their labours, the same force and regularity is observable. But mark the co . irse of proceedings in England. Are we on the verge of war, ten thousand clamor ous tongues resound from one end of the island to the other, each with a separate plan, a separate accusation, and a separate bugbear. Are we intent upon social amelioration, juve nile reformatories, the management of con victs, or the education of the people, no scheme can be proposed which does not impinge upon the prejudices of some individul, or awaken the determined hostility of some in terested class. All can give the fullest and loudest expression to their sentiments, and the Minister who should absolutely refuse to listen to them all in turn would not bold office for a day. Procrastinations, imperfections, and inconsistencies are the certain results of such a system as this. Such is the picture drawn by the enemies of constitutional government, and, for the sake of the argument, we will suppose it to be a true one. But we confidently assert that it offers not one single consideration in favour of an exchange with bureaucratic despotism. There is no royal road to national !greatness any more than to private greatness. We must follow nature as our guide if we would attain results either wholesome or permanent. The individual man is a type of man in the aggre gate. Nations, too, have their intellectual, their moral, and their physical faculty. And it is only by developing the whole three that genuine excellence can be reached. History tells us of the meretricious and short-lived splendour which has sometimes been won by ignoring this natural law—of Dionysius, o Pericles, of Augustus. And the records of science and literature teem with examples of mistaken scholars who, by sacrificing every thing to intellect, by starving the senses and stifling the passions, have purchased a porten tous brilliancy at the cost of a premature grave. But is this the life which a sane and sober man would choose for his children, or a sane and sober citizen for his country ? No. Let us at all events be men. Let us think no price too great to pay for the inestimable blessings of national health—for the preservation of that exuberant and even boisterous energy which breaks forth on the platform, in Parliament, and in the press ; for the coexistent vigour of all our natural func tions, no one of which may be singly so power ful as in some other nations, but which, united, go steadily forward to the attainment of their proper ends; for the welfare of that national character which, slow of conviction, slow to bo set in motion, and deliberate in action, is ever tenacious of purpose, undaunted by failure, and unwearied by the most protracted efforts. But with all this bureaucracy has nothing to do. It is a system which, to use a homely proverb, " puts the cart before the horse," which seeks to make the people great through the character of the Government, instead of making Government great through the charac ter of thelpeople.