The Press.
London, England, 1854-08-05 00:00:00

I

71r7"17

I

E

c

722

E

without principle or following, obtained office
mainly through an ostentatious parade of poli-
tical puritanism.
The facts of Mr. LAWLEY'S case are by this
time known to all England, anal the shall not
dwell upon them. It appears t this young
gentleman had been fe l. some years peat
speculator, and consequently a loser, on the
turf. Admitted to the secrets of Downing-
street, he did precisely what he would have
done if, by dint of bribing a stable-boy, Of
employing " touters," or any equally creditable
manoeuvre of the " leg" kind, he had managed
to secure early information as to the probable
winner of the Derby : he made his book, and
(unless much belied) helped certain of his
confederates to make theirs. This, to the
apprehension of ordinary capacities; is simple
swindling. Setting apart the question of
public policy, it is obvious that if a man bets
with another (and stock-jobbing is only betting
in a different form) on a supposed doubtful
event, he having at the time certain knowledge
that that event is already decided, he commits
a fraud, which, being detected, exposes him
not only to the forfeit of his winnings, but also
to personal disgrace and punishment. The
defence, or rather the excuse, put forward on
Mr. LAWLEY'S behalf is worse than childish—
it is a wilful confounding of right with wrong.
His apologists plead that Mr. LAWLEY made
no use of his exclusive intelligence, and that
his having lost instead of won is a proof that
he dealt fairly. Strange argument ! Are dis-
honesty and incapacity never combined ?
Does every rogue make a fortune ? And how
, (as the Times well asks) can a speculator help
availing himself of whatever knowledge he
may possess which bears on the subject-matter
of his speculation ? The plea needs no
refutation; it is simply preposterous; and, em-
nloyed by so skilful an advocat as Mextremer. GLD-
. . f the

Pk _
STONE, it furnishes a measure ol
badness of his cause. Nay, the CHANCELLOR
of the EXCHEQUER himself—witness and coun

le ...
sel at once—let out in the former capacity
what in the latter he ought to have laboured
to conceal. There was a possible door, of
escape left for Mr. LAWLEY. It might have
been contended that his duties as private se-
cretary were merely mechanical, that he was
entrusted with no great project• of finance, that
• lie was an apprentice only, not an adminis-
trator, and that possessing no confidence he
could have violated none. His acquaintance
with the financial future might have been ex-
' plained as the eaves-dropping of a clerk ad-
mitted to live on familiar terms with his em-
ployer, and gleaning a secret here and there
out of random phrases carelessly dropped. In
' this way his offence might have been reason-
ably extenuated, a mercantile fraud repre-
sented as the results of a lucky conjecture,
and a deliberate breach of trust reduced to
an official indiscretion. But Mr. GLADSTONE has
cut this ground from under his own feet. He
himself acknowledges, nay, emphasises the
fact, that the duties of Mr. LAWLEY were of a
character unusually confidential and impor-
. tent. He argues thus, not blindly or without
an object, but as an answer to those critics
who quarrelled with Mr. LAWLEY'S youth and
inexperience.
Among such objectors we shall not be
. numbered. Mr. LAWLEY is no mere youth
Oviresh from college, and unversed in the ways
of the world. He is an old hand, with ample
experience of a particular kind ; nay, we will
't allow that as a governor, had fortune suffered
him to profit by his appointment, he might
have appealed successfully to the sympathies
least ' - Australian society.
)NE's plea; and in
tat, in fact, stands in
more implicit amC
reposed, the more
guilt of its betrayal.
suggests itself, to
found in the debate.
. LAwtnis superiors
the time when they
her Majesty at the
is in itself extra
_ promotion facili-
Lord ABERDEEN'S 8011
of little moment—
reason why an im-
' in a remote settle-

/129•V0 a. yr,........- ___
. of at least one class in Ai
But NVP admit Mr. GLAD9TON
' admitting it we repeat what,
• need of no proof, that the x
intimate the confidence re
aggravated becomes the guil
One question naturally s
which no solution will be foi
. To what extent were Mr. L
, T I • i tep4t guilt, at the
,; '.. m itrNepresent he
4, 4 - • e selection
''''•he : , ',AIO: , • 4. that his
it,,
„..,„A4,, • ~ ce of Lor
tik.
or 444 , . a matter c
•\ . .': NA -,
ha t gy‘., -•v, ' t 'visible re
I,P ' r Ili i' • ' : tire post i
....."'
nadVas Air
4t .4 NI
k