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 chrysalis 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 to the fund 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.