The Press.
London, England, 1856-07-26 00:00:00

JAMES SADLEIR AND HIS FRIENDS.

THE debate on Mr. ROEBUCK'S motion for the
expulsion of JAMES SADLEIR, the fugitive from
penal justice, cannot be perused with much
satisfaction. Mr. ROEBUCK, indeed, has so often
attempted to act the part of " conscience-
keeper " to the British public, that his propo-
sitions are received with disfavour in some
quarters. But Mr. NAPIER, who seconded the
proposal for SADLEIR'S expulsion, is one of the
highest constitutional authorities in the
House. lie is a scientific lawyer, a philoso-
phical jurist, as conversant with large princi-
ples as with dry details ; and that eminent
lawyer thought that there was evidence
enough to warrant the immediate expulsion
of SADLEIR, and he supported his opinion with
ample argument.
Mr. J. D. FITZGERALD, who followed Mr.
NAPIER, spoke evidently from " a cram,"
for the question was one not very suitable for
nisi pries talents. The Recorder of London
had previously smoothed the way for Mr. J D.
FITZGERALD by intimating that the motion was
" premature.' We should have wished, however,
that the Recorder of London had given us
the benefit of his moral indignation. We
recollect the ease of a certain Mayor of a small
borough, who, some years since, deposed to
false statements before an election committee.
He afterwards came forward and admitted the
falsehood. The Attorney-General (Sir A.
COCKBURN) did not interfere to prosecute,
thinking, perhaps, that the exposure of such a
case was ample punishment. The eloquent
moral indignation of Mr. STUART WORTLEY in
that case we still remember, and we would
have wished that equal animation, and a similar
burning desire that criminal acts should be
punished, had been shown by Mr. STUART
WORTLEY, when the case of the criminal was
not a mere Mayor of a small borough, but an
influential member of an unscrupulous family,
which gave important help to Lord ABERDEEN.
Mr. STUART WORTLEY'S moral zeal should burn
with a steadier flame. The Right Hon. Gen-
tleman discussed the Sadleir scandal, in what
Mr GLADSTONE would call a " gingerly " style ;
and the contrast between the cautious treat-
ment given to the gigantic swindler and the
virtuous indignation felt about the petty
Mayor, who had surrendered to justice, is
highly illustrative of a gentleman with such
high personal and hereditary claims to the
character of a " waverer."
Other reflections will be suggested by the
perusal of the debate. Personal scandals and
official wrong-doings, whether real or alleged,
were exaggerated malignantly against their
adversaries by the official supporters of the
Coalition. Where is the indignation of all
their brawling accusers now, when one of their
own connection is before them ? Not one of
them speaks ; they " leave it to RoEnucx ; "
and the matter is smoothed over. " The job-
bery of modern Liberalism " for audacity in
hiding scandals, and fur the assumption of
political virtue, exceeds even what might be
expected. It is really " too bad."

CAUSES OF PROLIX DEBATES.

THE increasing length of debates in the House
of Commons has been a subject of constant com-
plaint since the Reform Bill ; and Lord PALMERS-

TON did not, on Tuesday, state the whole of the
reasons why so many members now address
the House as compared with the practice for-

merly. The Premier evidently piques himself
upon the agreeable way in which he glides
away from " unpleasant " views of things. He
put the blame on the constituencies created
by the Reform Bill, and took no notice of the
loss of time incurred by members without
high personal pretensions as orators or men
of general information. The subject is rather
delicate, but we really do not think that it is
the members for large constituencies who
lengthen the debaies. The county members
take rather less than their proportion of de-
bating, and, with the exception of Sir B.
HILL, the metropolitan members have not
been too constantly on their legs. Mr. BUN-
COMBE was never a tedious speaker; Mr.
WAKLEY spoke often, but briefly to the point ;
Sir DE LACY EVANS is not a proser, though his
colleague succeeds in that line ; and no one

can charge the four members for the City of
London with having been wearisome to the
House.

It cannot be denied that many members
consume the public time from feelings of per
sonal vanity. Mr. R J. PHILLIMORE alluded

some time since to the curious change result-
ing in the constitution of the House of Com-
mons with reference to the striking diminution
in the number of gentlemen with university
degrees. He stated truly enough that the
members \VIIO came into the House from the
manufacturing districts were generally of the
middle age in life ; and he might have added
(what is certainly no discredit to them) that
several of this particular body of members
have been the first of their families. With
many admirable private qualities, that descrip-
tion of persons are always prone to exaggerate
their own importance. Satirical observers

would have an ample field in depicting the
absurd vanity of provincial politicians, and
their anxiety to see their names in the Parlia-
mentary reports.
Under these influences the House of Com-
mons has too often resembled an overgrown
parish vestry. Any one is now tolerated
"on his logs." When a great parliamen-
tary failure, " Conversation SHARP," entered
the House of Commons in 1807, Sir JAMES
MACKINTOSH encouraged him to attempt the
part of an orator, as there were "no longer
" such terrible listeners as Prrr and Fox."
And even in subsequent times the " terrible
listeners " prevented many middling speakers
addressing the House of Commons. The
subordinate class of Irish members, introduced
by " the tail," was, also, responsible for the
modern practice of " any one at all" standing
up to speak.

Mr. Wattrwsos's method of an arbitrary
limit would never suit a free assembly like the
House of Commons. The members, gene-
rally, are the greatest sufferers from the multi-
tude of speakers, for it must be a most irk-
some and harassing thing for many a member
to wait and wait until one speaker after
another has bored the House before he can
bring forward some well•considered motion. It
would, however, be absurd to apply a Procus-
teen limit to all speakers, good or bad, and it,
would be highly invidious to draw a line be-
tween the various classes of orators, even if it

were practicable.
11111&