The Press.
London, England, 1854-08-19 00:00:00

FRESH LAWLEY SCANDAL.

SIR JAMES GRAHAM once called the Melbourne
Cabinet by the vituperative nickname of " the
" Magdalen Ministry." We were reminded of
the phrase by the announcement that Mr.
GLADSTONE had shriven Mr. FRANCIS LAWLEY,
and accepted his ignominious exposure as
sufficient " penance " for his breaches of official
integrity. Mr. GLADSTONE'S ideas of right are
beyond our control, as the ethics of an
amateur Jesuit are entirely above our com-
prehension. But positive acts are within our
sphere of observation, and the manner in

SATURDAY,

which Mr. FRANCIS LAWLEY is reinstated in

the public service, is even more discreditable
than the extraordinary fact of his fresh ap-

pointment.
Upon the very day (August 12th) on which
Parliament was prorogued, a letter appeared
in the City article of the Times, referring to
coffee and chicory, and signed "W. E. Glad-
stone." Up to that time, the last day of the
session, every person thought that Mr. LAWLEY,
for his malpractices, had been removed from
the public service. Four days afterwards, a
letter dated " Downing Street, August 15th,"
appears_ in the public prints, signed " Francis
" Lawley." GLADSTONE conceals from
Parliament the fact that Mr. LAWLEY had re-
sumed his duties of a most confidential nature
at the Exchequer! We have Mr. GLADSTONE'S
own statement that " the office of Private Se-
" cretary to the Minister of Finance was more
" responsible than being the head of other
" departments."
Yet this important position is again assigned
to an individual who drew down on himself
the censure of Parliament. The gravamen of
the charge against Mr. LAWLEY is, that his
object was to snake money for himself, by
abusing his knowledge of his Sovereign's ser-
vice. Scandals have arisen from indiscreet
anxiety to serve a party and to promote the
cause in which men have embarked their sym-
pathies. But the vileness of the Lawley
scandal stands out prominently in the fact
that the auri sacra fames was at the bottom of
his dishonourable speculations in the funds.
At the very time when he had the " private "
papers of the CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER
under his " confidential" cognisance this
gentleman played with loaded dice in the
gambling shop of the Stock Exchange.
Nor is that all. Mr. LAWLEY, to the last,
falsely persisted in his first statements of his
innocence. It was only in the awe of inevi-
table exposure that his audacity gave way,
and, quailing before Sir JOHN PAXINOTON'S
formidable circumstantiality, he abjectly con-
fessed his offence. The " City of London"
must be differently constituted from former
days, if it will tamely acquiesce in the insult
offered to its mercantile integrity, by the
appointment of a convicted schemer to a post
which ensures him full knowledge of the
closest secrets of our national finances.

DR. WISEMAN UNMASKED.
THE remarkable case of " Boyle v. Wiseman,"
tried last week at Guildford, disclosed more
unfavourable aspects of Doctor WISEMAN, ill
his personal character, than have previously
appeared. The peculiar manner in which the
case was defended gives us a near view of
the internal working of the Romanist ma-
chinery. It was an action of libel, in which
a Roman Catholic priest sought to recover
damages for a letter, avowedly written by Dr.
WISEMAN. The plaintiff, Mr. BOYLE, belonged
to the moderate party amongst the Romanibts;
and it seems that a controversy had been
maintained in France, between the Ultramon-
tanist organ, the Univers, and the Moderate, or
" Cisalpine," journal, called the Anti de la Reli-
gion. The proceedings of " Cardinal" WISEMAN
were commented on in the latter, and objected
to in a series of letters written from London.
Doctor WISEMAN assumed that these letters
were the productions of Mr. BOYLE 'S pen, and
he forthwith assailed that gentleman in the
Univers, in language of unmeasured severity,
and vilified his character as a clergyman who
neglected his duties, and had shown himself
insubordinate to his superiors, The letter
written by Doctor WISEMAN was copied into
several English Roman Catholic journals, and,
of course, grievously damaged the character
of Mr. BOYLE.
Then comes the really extraordinary fea-
tures of the case. It turns out upon investi-
gation that the critical strictures upon Doctor
WISEMAN were never written by Mr. BOYLE,
the aggrieved party in the case. Their author
was another Roman Catholic clergyman, the
Rev. Mr. Noss, who went in the witness-
box, and, after stating that he was " Incum-

Lseman,"
341 more
MAN, ill
eviously
hich the
view of
List ma-
in which
recover
a by Dr.
belonged
manibts ;
.ad been
ltramon-
derate, or
!e
WISEMAN
objected
L London.
se letters
pen, and
m in the
severity,
(man who
n himself
he letter
,pied into
nulls, and,
character
inary fea-
m investi-
lon Doctor
BoYLE,
keir author
yman, the
e witness-
; " inetlina

AUGUST 19, 1854.

" bent of the chapel of St. Alexis, Kentish-
" town," he avowed the authorship of the
letters. Thus Doctor WISEMAN, with all his
" infallibility," had placed himself in the un-
pleasant position of mistaking his antagonist
and vilifying another person. By an apology,
however, it might have been easy to repair
the damage that he had inflicted on Mr
BOYLE. Let us see what Doctor WiSEMAN
actually did.
He allowed the case to go to trial. The
plaintiff (Bons) placed the whole matter
before a jury, and challenged his antagonist
to justify the libel. He even subpcenaed the
Doctor, and tried to get him into the witness-
box. The counsel for Dr. WISEMAN (Sergeant
SHEE) objected on the technical ground
that a witness must not criminate himself as
the author of a defamatory libel. The point
was ruled in favour of the defendant, and the
plaintiff then vainly endeavoured to produce
legal proof of the publication of the original
libel against him. The manuscript of the
letter of Doctor WISEMAN could not be ob-
tained. Its publication in the Tablet was
printed from the handwriting of one 3f the
literary staff upon that journal, and, on the
mere technicality, the plaintiff, Mr. BOYLE,
was baffled ani nonsuited. Observe the facts.
The plaintiff was libelled by the defendant;
Mr. BOYLE calls upon his accuser to substan-
tiate his malignant accusations ; by the advice
of his counsels the doctor puts only one plea
on the record, " Not guilty,' avails himself of
one point of law to escape being sworn, and of
another point to avoid the consequences of the
libel, and leaves the court without offering
any reparation to the injured plaintiff.
Whether that plaintiff was guilty or not of the
imputed negligence and insubordination
imputed to him we have no knowled*,
but we have the important fact that, until
within a very few days of the trial, he WAS
allowed to officiate as a priest, when Dr.
GRANT, the Romanist "Bishop of Southwark,"
refused him permission in his " diocese," as
he (Bovfx) was bringing the "Cardinal" into
court.
So far the ease was bad enough, but there
were also some other very unfavourable dis
closures. Mr. BOYLE endeavoured to extract
evidence of the publication of the libel from
the above mentioned " Bishop of Southwark,"
and also from a certain " Father Ignatius,"
known in former times as the " Hon. and

" Rev. GEORGE SPENCER" (brother of the late
Earl SPENCER), hut, though these gentlemen
had within the last month been in communi-
cation with " the Cardinal" on the whole sub-

ject of the action, it appeared that they were
troubled with most oblivious memories. We
also get peeps at the interior of Dr. WISEMAN'S
very peculiar establishment, in which Mon-
signor SEARLE, "an Englishman with a foreign
" title," acts as private secretary to the " Car-
" dinal Archbishop of Westminster," helped
by a certain Mr. REES GAWTHORNE, whose
name will be familiar to some of our readers
in connection with a remarkable correspon
deuce with a dignitary of the Church of Eng-
land. The absence of candour on the part of
Dr. WISEMAN, the craft and subtlety employed
by himself and his clerical confederates, and
the manner in which be extricated himself
from the consequence of his attack on Mr.
Rom, have left upon ourselves even a more
unfavourable impression than we had derived
from his antecedents. In the whole case his
conduct was thoroughly unworthy of an Eno
Hallman, and was Romanist to the very last
degree. And such is the man to whom the
Court of Rome, as if to show the farce of in-
fallibility, has confided the religious interests
of the Roman Catholics of England ! And,
still worse, such is the man whose arrogance
and audacity were aided and abetted by some
of our present Ministers of the Crown !

THE O'FLAHERTY CASE AGAIN.
THE old adage " when rogues fall out, drk.,"
has been rather amusingly exemplified since
our last publication in the proceedings at a
Police-office in Dublin. We then stated that
the information respecting the O'Flaherty
ease was incomplete. Something has been
added since. The Duke of NEWCASTLE'S con-

THE PRESS.

fidential friend—Mr. GLLDSTONE'S special com-

missioner—Sir JOHN You No's nominee—the

gentleman for whose veracity, honour, and
accuracy the Solicitor-General for Ireland
pledged himself in the House of Commons—

has been accused of no less a crime than

forgery; and his accuser is the Solicitor-

General for Ireland !

The affair is somewhat graphic and charac-
teristic. Two gentlemen, bearing the signi-
ficant names of SALOMAN and LAZARUS, were

captivated by the tempting signature of the
Special Commissioner of Income Tax affixed to
a bill, and. by the scarcely less alluring en-

dorseinent of the Solicitor-General for Ireland.

There was no resisting such a bait—one of
Mr. GLADSTONE'S Exchequer Bonds would

have been nothing to it—Messrs. SALOMAN and
LAZARUS forthwith paid down their 4501., and,
no doubt, considered themselves happy in hay-
ing such high officials as customers. They may
have expected—and, for aught we know, may
have obtained—certain collateral advantages
in connection with Schedule D. ; at all events,
it is to be hoped that the prcfits of this little
transaction were not rated for their income tax.
We wish Mr. FITZGERALD had interrogated
them a little upon that point. Mr. FITZGERALD,
however, was malicious enough to ask Mr.
KEOGH, the Solicitor General for Ireland,
whether he had ever been engaged in any
bill transactions with Mr. O'FLAHERTY. The
Solicitor-General for Ireland engaged in bill
transactions ! Mr. KEOGH was indignant.
" Certainly not." But second thoughts are
best : he had once—only once—received pay-
ment from Mr O'FLAIIERTY by a bill for
money due to him. The examination was cut
short, perhaps properly, by the magistrate in
the approved form, " Have you any further
questions to ask ? " We own we should have
liked to have probed the matter a little
further. Here, at all events, we have proof
from the Solicitor-General for Ireland him •
self that Mr. GLADSTONE'S special com-
missioner, to whom, as a man of honour,
the people of Ireland were invited by Mr. GLAD-
STONE to entrust the secrets of their properties,
to whom, as a man of integrity, was committed
by the public the power of determining the
amount at which each and every person was
to be assessed, with all the absolute and irre-
sponsible authority which the seal of secrecy
conveys,—we have this man convicted, we
may say, of wholesale forgery of the most
deliberate and audacious nature. This is the
man whom Mr. GLADSTONE ventured to vindi•
cate by alleging that a whisper against him as
regards his public conduct had never reached
him. We can easily believe it. If considera-
tions were given, or• bills accepted, or• little
innocent transactions, like that with Mr.
KEOGH, cushioned, and if assessments conse-
quently were improperly and fraudulently
reduced by this immaculate public officer, is
it likely, we ask, that a whisper of such
malversaf•ion would reach the CHANCELLOR of
the EXCHEQUER? And is it uncharitable to
suppose that the man who forged the Solicitor-
General's name, who forged his colleagues
name, who forged the names of his intimate
friends, who resorted to such means for raising
money, could have hesitated in adopting the
more easy and less hazardous mode of
malversation which the opportunities of his
office presented ? We aver that the public
have an interest in the character of every
public officer ; that it is the business and
duty of a Minister to make himself ac
quainted with the antecedents and charac-
ter of the person he appoints ; that to appoint
in wilful ignorance to offices of trust is to
appoint corruptly ; and that Mr. GLADSTONE,
though he disclaims it, is responsible for the
frauds and malversations of Mr. O'FLAHERTY.
We believe that the character of a Govern-
ment may be fairly judged of by the character
of their appointees—and that SADLEIR, STONOR,
LAWLEY, and O'FLAHERTY, indicate the public
virtue of the Duke of NEWCASTLE and the
CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER.

771

EDUCATION IN INDIA:
WE gave last week a short analysis of the
Education Despatch of Sir CHARLES WooD,
We pointed out the futility of its provisions

for the purposes professedly in view, and we
promised to submit our own ideas of the
measures to be adopted if we would Euro-
peanise in intellect and feeling the people
subjected to our sway in India. We showed
that, as regards the numberless different
vernacular languages of India, all hope of con-
veying to the natives through their medium a
knowledge of the literature, the arts, and tbe
sciences of Europe must be abandoned. One
might as reasonably found colleges for the cul-
tivation of the vernacular languages of the
aboriginal tribes in New South Wales. The
first step towards Europeanising the native
intellect of India must be that which DWAR-

KANATH, ZAGORE, and RAMMOHUN ROY, and other

eminent natives have adopted—the cultivation
of the English tongue.
The simple reason why the knowledge of
our language is not more prevalent in India is,
that little inducement has beet► offered to the

people for its acquirement. As far as such
inducements have been offered there has been

no lack of readiness to respond to them.
At the Presidencies, where the public offices,
the supreme courts of judicature, lawyers
clerkships, and merchants' counting-houses
afford a tolerable field for the employment of
natives versed in English, the applicants
for place have always been more than ade-
quate to the demand ; and if a similar sup-
ply is not to be found in the interior it is
because there is no demand in those locali-

ties, the India Company insisting on adopting
a contrary practice in its offices there to that
followed at the Presidencies by the Crown. The
result is that hardly any natives in the bite, for
study English : the public offices arc tilled
by men ignorant of all but the vernacular
dialect of the district; the selection for em•
ployment is confined to them ; and every
collector's and judge's office throughout the
land is thus made a centre of organised
nepotism, partiality, and corruption. The
imperfect knowledge of the vernacular usually
possessed by the European functionary
renders him dependent to a great extent on
his subordinates, who take advantage of his
ignorance, and avail themselves of their local
connection for the purpose of combination,
to answer their own ends and escape his con-
trol.

If we wish to induce the natives to study
English we must break up these local
monopolies of office, make our own lan-
guage the language of office throughout In-
dia, and, having done so, open the path for
employment to all. This was what the Mogul
conquerors, our predecessors in rule, did in
respect to their language, and an almost
universal knowledge of Persian throughout
India was the result. The natives were thus
introduced to the whole range of l'ersian and
Arabic literature, the noblest gift that in the
then state of human enlightenment could be
bestowed on them. At the same time, the
Moguls fixed by this proceeding the founda-
tion of their empire so deep in the soil that it
took centuries to shake their authority; while
we, on the contrary, if expelled from India to-
morrow, would hardly leave a trace of our
dominion behind.
But, while thus establishing their language
as the language of office throughout India,
and so making its acquisition a necessity to
the learned, to the wealthy, to the polite, and
to those who would engage in the public ser-
vice, or aspire to the prizes of public
life, they were just and generous enough
to afford ample means for the acquisition
of it to all. Colleges and schools were en-
dowed to teach it, and there was no con-
siderable town, and, in many parts of India,
scarcely a village, without an institution
in which it might be learned. Authorship
in the language was liberally encouraged.
Learning was honoured and rewarded, and,
the prizes of public life were open to
the educator of every degree. At the same time
unity of action was secured, local combinations
put an end to, and the most effectual super-

cation with " the Cardinal" on the
ject of the action, it appeared that
troubled with most oblivious men
also get peeps at the interior of Dr
very peculiar establishment, in 1,1
signor SEARLE, "an Englishman wi
" title," acts as private secretary ti
" dinal Archbishop of Westruinst
by a certain Mr. REES GAWTHO
name will be familiar to some of
in connection with a remarkable
deuce with a dignitary of the Chu]
land. The absence of candour or
Dr. WISEMAN, the craft and subtle
by himself and his clerical confer
the manner in which be extrica
from the consequence of his att
Bony., have left upon ourselves
unfavourable impression than we
from his antecedents. In the wh
conduct was thoroughly unworth3
Hallman, and was Romanist to t
degree. And such is the man I
Court of Rome, as if to show the
fallibility, has confided the religi(
of the Roman Catholics of Eng
still worse, such is the man whom
and audacity were aided and abet
of our present Ministers of the Cr
THE O'FLAHERTY CASE
THE old adage " when rogues f
has been rather amusingly exern
our last publication in the pros
police-office in Dublin. We tiler
the information respecting th 4
ease was incomplete. Somethin
added since. The Duke of NEWT