The Press.
London, England, 1856-04-05 00:00:00

THE PRESS.

Irish Members whom the Whigs had con-
temptuously dropped. They accepted votes of
thanks from miscellaneous assemblages in
Ireland, and wrote letters of thanks to the
Roman Catholics containing sly taunts at the
Whigs. They did not care about the storm
of English disapprobation which greeted their
conduct. " Organisation " was on their lips,
and to grasp power was in their minds. The
Irish Members flattered and fooled them, and
talked loudly of the three score of votes which
the next general election would give them in
Ireland. They were boastful of what they
could perform, and the Duke of NEWCASTLE
and his friends were at once coarse, credulous,
and rash.

All through the summer of that year it was
impossible to go to the House of Commons
without being struck by the Irish Brigade.
If not famous, they were certainly conspicuous,
and they made as much noise in the lobby
as a dozen railway coninuttees. To and fro
between the House of Commons and the
Erectbeum Club in St. James's-square, there
might have been met at that time a gentleman
with a long blue frock-coat and velvet collar.
His face had an embrowned complexion, and
it had several handsome features, marred in
effect by the downcast look about the eyes.
There was generally a roll of papers in his
hand, and he might have been mistaken for
a subordinate surveyor connected with the
Irish railways. It was EDMUND OTLALIERTY,
the " whip " of the party, whose speeches were
" done " by Mr WILLIAM KEOGH, and whose
contracts were "arranged" by JOHN SADLEIR.
The latter person was not so frequently
visible as many of the other associates in the
connection. He was intent on " the City,"
and used Parliamentary pawns merely as his
means for helping him to be a capitalist ill
votes and cash. Shrewd, keen, and self-
collected, his manner was that of a negotiator,
and not of a brawling tribune. A sinister
expression loured over his face which re-
pelled confidence, and a less fascinating per-
son to play so desperate a part could scarcely
have been conceived.

It was matter for reflection to think upon
the lamentable degeneracy of the Liberal
party in Ireland, when it bad fallen under the
control of the " Irish Brigade." Forty years
since, its Parliamentary connection boasted of
such names as GRATTAN, Mr. PLUNKET, Mr.
PONSONBY, Sir JOHN NEWPORT, Sir HENRY
PARNELL, the HUTCHINSONS, and others worthy
of senatorial place. Even in our own time, the
popular representatives of Ireland were vastly
superior to the Brass Band faction. O'CONNELL
was a giant amongst tribunes. Mr. SHELL had
brilliant powers for splendid declamation.
Mr. WYSE had ail the accomplishments of a
philosopher. Mr. BURKE ROCHE (Lord Fer-
moy) had birth and fortune, and a tried cha-
racter. But the extraordinary thing about the
Sadleiraeogh party was its want of all ante-
cedents. Our readers saw last week Mr.
KEOGH'S own account of his position. But
there were some political circumstances in
that position which were then highly advan-
tageous to himself.
Since the Lnion Irish barristers have rarely
entered the House of Commons. Forexample,
Mr. PLUNKET was Attorney-General of Ireland
during the Fox-Grenville Ministry, and dis-
tinguished himself highly in 1807 ; but when
he found that his friends were out of office,
he quitted the House of Commons, avowing
that he could not afford to remain away from
his practice, and scorning to play the part of
an adventurer; nor did he return to St.
Stephen's until, by the death of his elder bro-
ther, lie had inherited a considerable fortune.
If, however, the Irish Bar has less scope now
than formerly for rearing orators, its habits
have become more purely forensic, and it
counts a far greater• number of deeply-read
lawyers than in other days Though the
names of BLACKBURNE, PENNEFATHER, and
WARREN have never been enrolled in the
Senate, they are familiarly appreciated in
Westminster-hall. In 1848-9 it is a fact that
the Trish Liberal Bar had not one member in
Parliament. Mr. KEOGH was then a " Con
ser•vative," and Mr. NAPIER, in the first rank of
his profession, was chosen by the University of
Dublin to fill the place of the distinguished
orator Mr. SLUR.

315

Such, therefore, was exactly the state of
affairs which would give vast scope to mob
" leaders," as those of the Brigade. They
were on the spot in London; they had access
to a credulous Duke and his facile friends ;
they could affect to be the chieftains of the peo-
ple of Ireland; they could get up a mighty
"party"; they could "destroy the Whigs",
they could set up the Peelites to the tune of
civil and religious liberty; they could—there
really was no end, according to their boasts,
of what they could not do
Yes ! there was one thing that those men
could not do. On the 6th of September, 1848,
not long before bis lamented death, Lord
GEORGE BENTINCK wrote from Harcourt•house
to an Irish gentleman the following remark-
able words:—

It is not the Repeal of the Union that Ireland wants.
She wants men to represent her who, understanding her
material and substantial interests, are willing and able to
promote and maintain them, and will not, on the one hand,
to g .in the shouts of the mob, divert public and Parlia-
mentary attention to phantom reforms that have no real
virtue in them; or, on the other hand, sell their votes to
win the smiles, or maybe something more valuable in the
gift of the Ministers of the day.
To realise that want of Ireland was beyond
the power of " the party " which the Duke of
NEWCASTLE and his friends took unto their
hearts.

It is worthy of note that the instinct of the
popular party in Ireland told it that really
independent members were its great want.
At that time, as now, large classes of the ten-
antry in Ireland were most anxious that there
should be legislation on the land question.
The Tenant League had considerable influ-
ence in elections; the Catholic Defence Society
was at work ; and a general desire was preva-
lent in the Roman Catholic interest that a
great popular party should be created, which
should have the same representative efficacy
as the connection formerly led by O'CONNELL
and Mr. SREIL. Accordingly, an " Indepen-
dent Irish Party " was formed, which was to
stand in the same position as the old Catholic
Association ; and that party could not have
been constructed if it did not pledge itself to
be independent.
We have previously described the operations
at the general election in 1852. For months
the leaders of that party had been actively at
work. How loudly they promised to be inde-
pendent we need not repeat. But of these
promises there was the greatest distrust.
There are grounds for believing that even in
the autumn of 1851 there was a submarine
connection, of a most peculiar kind, between
this " independent" Irish party (or some of its
chiefs) and certain Peelites in England. It is
not a little remarkable that Mr. FREDERICK
LUCAS, the late Member for Meath, actually
sketched out even then the plan of the Coali-
tion. He propounded in print a sagacious
surmise that the Solicitor-Generalship for
Ireland, the Chief Secretaryship of Ireland,
and a Commissionership of Stamps, would, in
case of a Coalition, suit the Secretaries of the
Catholic Defence Association. For having
uttered hints of a similar character at a public
dinner at Athlone, Mr. LUCAS, on the 28th of
October, 1831, was called to account by Mr.
KEOGH :

You ( Mr. Keogh) used the strongest language that
could come from human lips for saying that if a Coahtion
Government were formed of Whigs and Peelites you would
accept the office of Solicitor-General.-1725—Rep. Prir.
Coven., 1854.
And again (1727) :--

You (Mr. Keogh) called me to account with conduct
most dishonourable, base, and disgraceful, when I said
that if a Coalition Government were formed, such as that
which now exists, you would take the office of Solicitor-
Genera, and you insisted upon those Catholic bishops
then present disclaiming any participation in that charge,
because you said it was so disgraceful to you.

Now, before going farther, we must entreat
of our readers to lay aside the notion that
these matters, and the most serious questions
arising from them, have ever been inquired
into before. We can assure the►x that such is
not the case. Out of the extraordinary facts of
the proceedings in 1851-2, in Ireland, and of
the subsequent junction with the Coalition
Cabinet, there spring the gravest questions of
public morality, and the whole facts have
never yet been investigated. We must remind
our readers that, when all these matters were
partly mooted in 1854, there was not as much


316

known about the characters of the Sadleirites
as there is now. At that time Mr EDMUND
O'FLAHERTY bad not gone on a mission to
the Levant. But we must also call on them
to recollect that the Committee of the House
of Commons pronounced no opinion at all
upon the charges then brought forward. The
Committee, in point of fact, had been nomi-
nated to examine charges of the Times against
the L•ish Members in general, about dealing
in official jobbery. The Committee, as has
before been seen, declined to report upon the
public and political life of the Solicitor-
General. When asked by Mr. G. H. MOORE,
before the Committee, how he could justify
his public acts, after the pledges he had given,
Mr. KEOGH answered, " That he did not intend
" to be catechised in ethics by any member of
"the Committee."

There is not, indeed, in the whole story of
the Sadleirites, a more characteristic episode
than the way in which inquiry was evaded in
this case; and this is the proper place for
stating it, in order to explain why these grave
matters must again be scrutinised. When the
Sadleirites violated their pledges, and accepted
office from the Coalition, there was a burst of
indignation from the popular ranks, and
twenty-two of the independent party refused
to sit on the Ministerial side of the House.
But these gentlemen were not well calculated
for eminent parts in Parliament. They had
not the faculty for prompt speaking ;—they
had placed reliance on Mr. JOHN SADLEIR, Mr.
Km:wit, and other persons, and they bad no
fancy for following the guidance of Mr. FREDE-
RICK LUCAS, or Mr. GAVAN DUFFY, whose ante•
cedents did not well qualify them for ruling a
connection in the House of Commons Mr.
GAVAN DUFFY was a vigorous writer but an un-
practised debater. He had the indiscretion
to make heavy charges of a serious kind
against an entire class of members. Nothing
could be more maladroit, and nothing could
have served more the purposes of those who
wished to evade inquiry. On May 5, 1853,
Mr. DUFFY stated :

I do not think that iu the worst days of the Walpoles
and the Pelhams more scandalous corruption existed than
I have seen with my own eyes practised on Irish mem-
bers.—Hassard, Third Series, vol. 126,p. 1191.
It is remarkable that Mr. VINCENT SCULLY at
once interposed, called to " order," and asked,
" Was such language to be tolerated ?" Then
came on an Irish " row," and several Mi.
nisterialists who had not been accused were
indignant. This was exactly the event that
could serve most the Sadleirites. Impeach a
whole class at any time, and the guilty indi-
viduals will escape.
Nothing, indeed, could be worse managed
than that attempt to bring the Sadleirites
within the scope of those rules which have
hitherto ruled the Executive and governed the
Parliaments of England.