The Press. — London, England, 1856-07-19 00:00:00

JULY 19, 1856• Splendid qualities, as our Parliamentary annals attest, have often been neutralised by their junction with systematic and ingrained insincerity. The first Marquis of LANSDOWNE deceived his colleagues in 1783, and was never trusted afterwards by King or country. Lord ROSSLYN (Wedderburn)—an orator, a lawyer, a statesman—ceased to he a ruling personage when his double-dealing was discovered ; and the same might be said of THURLOW. Why, again, did CANNING not predominate over his age ? He had spirit, eloquence, knowledge, and genius, but, unluckily for himself, he was an intriguer; and his old colleagues fled from him in 1827. Yet Lord CLARENDON is the politician looked to by some Liberals for a future Premier ! We would defy any Cabinet of which Lord CLA RENDON was the chief to remain in office for a single session. Lord CLARENDON is a clever man, but he has the reputation of being addicted to clandestine methods of acquiring influence. He is a proficient in the Madrid system of diplomatic espionage, using one per son to check another. He is not open, bold, and frank. He is specious and tortuous ; artfully amiable in manners, dexterously insincere in his conduct. His simulated friendliness evaporates in fine words ; his concealed enmity is not, however, confined to speech. That such a journal as the World could have been retained in the personal ser vice of an English statesman, and should have received his " private " thousands for slander ing and reviling the employer's political oppo nents—is a blot upon the escutcheon of Lord CLARENDON which time will never efface. It ought not to be forgotten, also, that the profession of Liberalism was made by Lord CLARENDON at a highly convenient time. His family had all been Tories and courtiers, and hangers-on upon Carlton-house. Even his brother, the late Mr. HYDE Vir.ttEns, was an avowed Tory ; but Lord CLARENDON " drifted " into Liberalism, and has lived in office, of one kind or another, since 1830. One brother is a Bishop, and another holds a high Ministerial office, with a large salary and few expenses attached to it. His brother in law is Chan cellor of the Exchequer, and his Lordship has certainly got his portion of the " good things " of Parliament. Taken in connection with such antecedents, we have been much struck by some of the re marks made on Monday by Mr. DISRAELI on Lord CLARENDON'S ambiguous conduct. " Count " WALEWSKI on the Bth of April declared that " it was desirable that the Plenipotentiaries " should not separate without interchanging " their ideas on different subjects which re " quired to be settled." Now, mark the words used by Lord CLARENDON at Paris with re ference to the Neapolitan question. "He is " of opinion that it must doubtless be admitted " in principle that no Government has the " right to interfere in the internal affairs of " other nations, but he considers there are " cases in which the exception to this rule " becomes equally a right and a duty." His Lordship then concluded :—" The Neapolitan " Government seems to have conferred this " right, and to have imposed this duty on " Europe." Well was Mr. DISRAELI justified in saying that " such language should never have been `• used in the absence of a definite policy "; and Lord CLARENDON'S speech of Monday proves that with "official reserve" upon his lips, his Lordship is bent upon that mis chievous " meddling" which is the Alpha and Omega of the Palmerstonian system of keep ing England embroiled with the whole world, though he makes petty efforts to hide his real purposes. THE IRISH ATTORNEY-GENERAL. ALTHOUGH Mr. NAPIER was right in saying that he had "no charge" to make against the Attorney-General for Ireland, still the conduct of that official is, beyond doubt, liable to stringent criticism. Our own opinion on Mr. FITZGERALD nearly coincides with that of our contemporary the Morning Herald, which rightly said, on Thursday, that " Mr. Fizz " GERALD is freed to some extent from the THE PRESS. " suspicion of personal delinquency "He is too small a man to fill the post of " the First Law Officer of the Crown, more " especially in a season of difficulty or excite " ment." Let us, for example, take his speech of Tuesday. Like his long-winded defence of the priests who aided in the Sixmile•bridge massacre, the address of Tuesday was awfully prolix. Sir A. COCKBURN, or Sir F. THESIGER, or Sir F. KELLY, would have stated the facts in a third of the time. Its language was insipid, its matter was enumerated as from a brief, it had not one single passage of eloquence. Was it such an address as might have been expected from the lips of one qualified to represent the genius, or learning, of the Bar of Ireland? The yawns of his wearied hearers might answer the question. But let us see to what facts against his own efficiency he testified. Thus, he cited letters in which he declared his inability to direct flout London a prosecu , tion against JAMES SADLEIR, just as if he had been asked to conduct a campaign. The Colonial Secretary finds no difficulty in " directing" the affairs of fifty colonies ; but Mr. J. D. FITZGERALD could not give requisite instructions how to prosecute a swindler who was a whole day's journey from London ! Then, again, this wonderfully energetic per sonage " accidentally learned that Mr. THOMAS " KEMMIS was in London ;" and Mr. FITZ GERALD, in his choice diction, " laid an em " bargo on that gentleman," and got him into communication with the English shareholders. What amazing activity ! But, besides, there was the important " Minute of Conference " between Mr. CHRISTIAN (Solicitor-General for Ireland), Mr. BREWSTER, Q.C. (of whose talents there can be no doubt), and Mr DONOHUE. Now, why Mr. BREWSTER was chosen many persons were tempted to inquire Why was not a case of that kind left to the confidential and salaried Crown officers, who should be responsible? Why did Mr. FITZGERALD select Mr. BREWSTER, the ex-Attorney General of Lord ABERDEEN, whose Cabinet owed such peculiar obligations to the Sadleir gang? If the Crown lawyers could not " direct " such a case, a brace of able barristers, entirely un connected with Lord ABERDEEN'S tail, should have been chosen to help the Crown in difficulty. For observe how the case was managed. Mr. CHRISTIAN was an equity barrister, not familiar with criminal prosecutions ; Mr. BREWSTER was connected closely with the Aberdeen patrons of the Sadleirs; and Mr. Dosotinz, a young barrister, was, we are in formed, the near relative of Mr. J. D. FITZGERALD. Without the least hint of disrespect, without a wcrd of disparagement to any of those learned gentlemen, we say that if the case presented such immense difficulty that the Irish Attorney General could not " direct " it from London, without calling in more aid, a dif ferent assortment of barristers should have been chosen. We are warranted in saying so, because the public mind in Ireland was pus sessed with the idea that certain persons, not unconnected with " the Castle," were con niving at " letting the Sadleirs down easy.' The appointment of JOHN SADLEIR, a third-class attorney, to a Lordship of the Treasury—the selection of Mr. OFLAHERTY for an income-tax commissioner—the choice of Mr. MONSELL for high office, appa rently because he had become a Roman Catholic (as he had no public services to show) —the cramming of the public offices with the creatures of the vile Sadleir gang those things had long inflamed the public sus picions in Ireland, and still operate on it, not without strong reason. We are far from having yet heard the last of these Sadleir scandals. It is known that there is more still to come out. Whatever was the worth of the " Minute of Conference " (which gave weak reasons, as it seems to us, against the prosecution of JAMES SADLEIR), it was overruled by the ATTORNEY GENERAL, who boasted that " he had done so "on his own responsibility." Of course he did, for no one else could officially have over ruled it; but we should like to know the exact influence of the English Attorney- 675 General on that overruling? And, really, it is rather curious to find a gentleman who could not "direct " a prosecution from London, boasting of his promptitude to overrule the decision of " The Minute of Conference." But, as there is no " charge " against Mr. J. D. FITZGERALD, we shall not carry our criticism on his weak and hesitating conduct any further. Abler and more accomplished men might easily have been found to fill his post : and it is a curious fact that Mr. J. D. FITZGERALD himself was never retained as one of the leading counsel in the modern State trials of Ireland. We could heartily desire to see the post of Attorney-General tilled by some one more competent to represent the eloquence and brilliancy of the Irish Bar. Members of Parliament, after their experience of his tiresome speeches,are not anxious to hear him await, and they wish that he would not bring himself into further collision with per sonages who are his superiors in all respects. When Mr. J. D. FITZGERALD talked of " the irregular" conduct of the MASTER of the ROLLS, and made some obscure sort of insinuations about the duty of a Privy Councillor, it would have been discreet and decorous if Mr. J. D. FITZGERALD had paid a tribute to the admirable industry and untiring talent with which that eminent judge unravelled the huge woof of fraud before him. It was a good joke, truly, of Mr. J D. FITZ GERALD to talk of himself as " a political rival" of Mr. NAPIER! Rivalry implies equality, and if Mr J. D. FITZGERALD were twenty years in Parliament he never would extract a compli ment like that paid by Sir R. PEEL to Mr. NAPIER—" Whoever heard him once would " desire to hear him again ; " the exact con verse of which proposition is applicable to the small nisi pries practitioner, teeming with petty points, and devoid of deep accomplishments, who occupies rather than fills the Attorney- Generalship of Ireland. SPLIT IN THE LIBERALS. THERE have been for some time strong symp toms of a split in the Liberal party, and a remarkable article in the Daily News of Wed nesday is one of the many signs of the fact. We are not surprised that there should be a strong disinclination amongst many Liberals to serving any longer under such a chief as Lord PALMERSTON. This feeling of incipient hostility is gradually swelling into louder tones, and it is reported that in the course of the autumn it will be manifested in open demonstrations preparatory to overt acts in the next session. It quite impossible, in deed, that Liberals of any spirit could submit to the leadership of a Minister who, while professing Liberalism, acts on the most abso lutist principles in foreign affairs. It is now found out that his fierce and flashy speeches of former years were little more than fustian. Hungary abandoned to its fate, and the Italians left to Austria, along with the uncon cealed sympathy with every act of the Empe ror of the FRENCH, must show Liberals that that there is no chance of Lord PALMERSTON realising their views. And now that the war is over, another sec tion of Liberals interested in domestic ques tions begins to grumble about supporting a statesman whose views on social questions are, after all, those of what is called " a Tory." It cannot be denied that Lord PALMERSTON has kept his slippery seat partly because he got an indirect kind of support from some country members, who looked on his Lordship as an effective drag on the Liberal party. They knew very well that " PALMERSTON was " no Reformer," and some of them could quote the jeering and scoffing words in which the Viscount's pen satirised Radicals of all kinds in the New iVhig Guide. The Noble Lord calling Mr. WILLIAMS of Lambeth " my honourable friend," and his ridiculous habit of bestowing the same designation on ultra politicians with whom he is not familiar, could deceive nobody His speech on the Irish Church, his brusque opposition to certain measures of the Manchester school, and the