The Dorset County Express and Agricultural Gazette.
Dorchester, Dorset, England, 1867-01-08 00:00:00

know which most to admire, Mr. Seymour's I the How* of Coonoloo ittoo by of the
uncalled-for personal avowal of observations , Errsittisy Berkeleys.a AlthOugh slistitY,'lhttory is
made by him in quality of • journalist (for mid in hi; mud gmmiii lowing me, mhies
henceforth he becomes, and must be ac,. ha, gained him somany admirers, jui, in the
counted "one of us") or the mendacity of the unmet instance, will make the little work with its
Brights in maintaining that half- a lie perfumed pages more "801 l sought after.—L. W.
is not, any day, quite as bad as a
whole one. By the accepted rules of
anonymous writing in England, Mr. Henry
Seymour as contributor of the article to the
Itirtosightk Review was by no means required
to reveal himself; and what the editor, Mr.
Morley, could be thinking of in blurting out
"the secrets of his prison house" even to the
mere extent of fathering the article, which
ostensibly was editorial, on "a Liberal
member of Parliament" we cannot imagine.
Mr. John Morley was no doubt new to the
situation, but still he ought to have re-
ligiously respected that which was another
man's, his predecessor's, Mr. G. 11. Lewes's,
secret and not his own. Indeed in no case
was the confidence his; it is the habitual
practice of an editor whom we know and
whose honour is unimpeachable,to reject every
overture, in whatever form it ms.y be made to
him, for the disclosure of the name of an
author who has placed such confidence in his
hands—at least his answer is "1 cannot
betray this trust, or give lit this name, save
under legal coypu:slier. me in the
witness-box, and I hope I will show that I
respect and understand the nature and obliga-
tions of an oath —but under other circum-
stances—sooner would I chop off' my right
hand with my left than give up the name of
a contributor, when an error of my editorial
judgment may have placed him in a fix." We
put this conversationally and as like as
possible to the words employed. Mr. Morley
it is true did not give up Mr. Seymour's
name, but we are humbly convinced that
after his allusion to "a Liberal member of
Parliament," Mr. Seymour had nothing left
for it but to take the avowal on himself. A
" Liberal member of Parliament" is not a
man whose candle could under the cir-
cumstances have long remained hid under
a bushel. A. very narrow circle of Liberal
members would speedily have been made to
indicate those contributing to the librtniglal
Review; and the saddle must eventually
have been put upon the right horse. Indeed
on the appearance of Mr. Seymour,. second
letter in the Time*, we hand it said by his
friends "the only pity is that he did not
avow it sooner." Bat in the interests
of anonymous journalism, which we assuredly
c° ise as the true Palladium of the liberty
of the press in this country we strongly
protest against that avowal altogether, for we
say, it completely stultifies the meaning and
purpose of those slashing critiques, in which ,
a free press only can indulge, on public men
and public matters. As for Hr. Bright's
share in the business, though Quaker like he
continues mute, it is only because the spirit
having moved Jacob and not John to speak
out, John may after all adroitly find it the
most convenient thing to allow his brother
to stand the brunt of a battle in which the
sole question is simply whether the misrepre-
sentations in which Mr. Bright has been
indulging in his Reform cruse have been
more or less enormous, since the upshot
must clearly be to leave them the enormity
be it less or more! Mr. Seymour very
temperately puts Mr. Bright's offence before
him.
"The statement that half the land ci! England is In
the hands of 150 proprietors, I humbly submit, deserves
the epithet I applied to It, and I respectfully beg to my
that Rush statements appear to me bleinishes in your
matchless oratoryt become' the object of eloquence is to
persuade, and men hesitate to believe if they meant
depend upon the facts on which the 0000h1111011111 of the
speaker are based. In some minds also, though not in
mine, it throws a doubt on the ham kits of the orator,
because the greater portion of the audience cannot
Inquire for themselves, and accept whatever you tell
them on your high authority. You are presumed to
know this, and therefore if you mislead them, you are
naturally held responsible."
Some hays gone the length of inserting that
O'Connell who, in his oratory, only aimed at
effect, had his uses in his day, and that for one
, thing no man could have kept Ireland quiet in
• his time, bad be not amused the Irish with mere
talk—froth and vapour. Perhaps Mr. Bright
may be emulating this example, but whereas an
• Irishman enjoys being humbugged, and can
literally exclaim with
_Hudibras

"Sorely the pleasure is se great
Of Wag cheated as to Ghost."
With Englishmen it is always a dangerous
expedient to attempt delusion. You may hear
what you please about the moose of Unackery,
imposture and pretense, and they do 'noosed,
but only until they are found out; for honest
John Hull abominates nothing half so much,
and we would not advise even Mr. Bright to try
to humbug him, at least, not if he lamer it.
Mr. Bright, however, is deaf to all osnatire. A
contemporary instan:w of this trope out at this
very moment. The Rev W. Chamberlayne,
incumbent of St. John's, Bolton, speaking of
this very thing—the vast amount of humbug in
the world, happened to add: "but I never did
think that my folio* countrymen could swallow
all the abominable trash that John Bright
utter.. I look upon him as • most ignorant
unfortunate man." Tile vague imputation
seems to have bad more effect in rousing Friend
John's ire than all the Philippics of Mr.
Seymour in the Fortnightly, for Mr. Bright
thus bitterly retorts:—" I pity the congregation
which is doomed to receive its weekly supply of
spiritual instruction from the ignorant and
vulgar minister whose sprch has been recently
reported in your papers. This, to resume tee
Bright and O'Connell parallel, reminds us of an
occasion on which the latter, being evidently
lost for terms of abuse with which to bespatter
his opponent, Mr. West, in the Dublin election,
resorted to the assertion that he was the ugliest
fellow he had ever seen. "Indeed," added
O'Connell, "he is so ugly, that people commonly
call him Sow-West." O'Connell did not know
Mr. West from Adam; even so Mr. Bright,
without probably the slightest knowledge of his
reverend censor, continues to beady words
which childishly proclaim him only what he
had termed Mr. Bright
llL—A.x•filas. VERY PRETTY bit ef corres-
pondence prefaces the coming struggle on the
Reform Bill. A member of the Reform League,
Mr. Joseph Guedalla, Nuys to win back Mr.
Robert Lowe, it. P., by directing his attention to
the order and intelligence shown by the working
classes in the late Reform Demonstrations
But our west country member replies The
Reform League having fastened upon me sews
nous which I have not made, has loaded Me
with the most virulent abuse, and has striven
to make me an object of the hatred, perhaps, •
mark for the vengeance, of my fellow country-
men. With such a body and its leaders, of
whom you appear to be one, I can have no
courtesies to interchange." From all these
incidents, as well as from what fell from the
Hon. Mr. Portman, as an exponent of the
moderate Whig party, at Blaniiford, we may
readily infer that on the Liberal side of the
House of Commons there exists an extensive
alienation from the views and schemes of the
democratic Reform movement.