The Sun.
London, England, 1835-11-17 00:00:00

SPIRIT OF THE PUBLIC JOURNALS.

The case of the . Rev. Mr. Rowlatt has made a
strong impression on the public mind. Indignation at
the tyranny, and sympathy with the suffi2rer,:are.the
prevailing feelings. According
_to a Correspondent of
the Times (who we must observe, by the way, is an
advocate in fairness and candour quite worthy of the
crooked cause he undertakes), Sir Robert Peel said to
the Bishop, " Find me the fittest man for this living ;"
and the Bishop took care not to find the man who had
a claim to it, according to all precedent and all rea-
sonable expectation. ''Sir Robert. Peel is vastly lauded
for having directed the Bishop to make choice of the
fittest man. There is the keenest satire in the praise.
Without express direction to choose the fittest man,
would not the Bishop have understood such' to have
been the Premier's wish ? Without express direction
to choose the fittest man,. would the Bishop have been
likely to make an election according to some very dif-
ferent rule ? Sir Robert Peel evidently thought it ne-
cessary to tell the Bishop to make an honest choice,
either because the Bishop might, but' for such instruc-
tion, have formed another notion of his (Sir Roberts)
wishes ; or because the Bishop, if left to his .own dis-
cretion, might not make the best use of his patronage
Whatever the motive for .the direction may have
been, the effect was unfortunate. Indeed it is clear
that if the Bishop needed the `instruction, .he was
likely to miscarry in the attempt to carry it
into execution. The novelty of such a rule of
choice would sufficiently explain the failure. For
the perfection of all things some use or, custom is
necessary ; and a dispenser of patronage who had
never looked out for " the fittest man," would of
course be at a loss, and liable to err, when 'for the
first time he set about so strange a business. For
operations apparently the most easy, there is something
of use or habit necessary analogous to what workmen
describe as " getting their hands in ;" and a Prelate,
who had never "got his hand in" at choosing the
fittest man for preferment, might be excused for
bungling upon the first attempt. It is a current and
sufficient plea for any miscarriage in execution, " I
was never asked to do such a thing before ;" or, " it is
the first time of my trying this method." Next we
have to consider how a Prime Minister's directions
to " choose the fittest man" would operate upon
the zeal of a bishop. A bishop, in such a case,
would hardly like to find a fittest man ready
provided, and half in the place,- as it were.
He would naturally be disposed to put by
obvious claimants, and to go far a-field and
search out such a paragon in some 'unexpected
quarter. The bird in the hand is never preferred
by one having special commission for a Pheemx. The
good housewife, says the wisest of men, fetcheth her
food from afar. And so the Bishop, when instructed.'
to look out for the fittest man, ranged beyond the
gentleman who had the misfortune to be nearest at
hand all but inducted. Thus far we have written as
apologists for the Bishop ; and further, we must con-
fess that it appears quite plain that the Bishop con-
ceived a cFstaste for Mr. Rowlatt's claims, and because
there was a smack of plurality-seeking in them. Now,
anything that savours, however 'faintly, of plurality,
must be very odious to a bishop.; and Mr. Rowlatt
undoubtedly desired to hold the living of St. Bride's;
together with the readership of the r•Temple. "This
was a gluttony which offended the Bishop—it "was- as.
if Lazarus had asked fOr Salt with his broken meat, or
cheese with his bread. It was like- tlx lawless and
profligate luxury of the ass, in Fontaine's Fable of the
animals visited.with 'a pestilence, that confessed having
cropped a blade of grass to which he was not entitled—
Uri loup, qucique peu clerc, prouva par sa harangue
Qu'il falloit devouer ce maudit'animal,
Ce pol 6 cc galeux, d'oa venoit tout leer mal.
Was it not enough to prejudice a clergyman in a
bishop's eyes, to see him ready to hold a preferment in
the Temple, which must at the least have kept his
- family in salt, together with the adjacent living of St.
Bride s?—and Mr. R owlatt would have held both if
the Bishop would have given him the latter. Thus,
when the fat Prior, .in the Daenna, hands the cup
he has just-drained .to the starving porter, on'seeing
the miserable wretch put the ,cup to his lips, he cries
out, " Ah, glutton, you would have drunk it, had
there been any left." And so the Bishop doubt
less -thought of Mr. Rowlatt—" A.l), pluralist, if
you could have got it, 'you would have held both."
'lliongll not a' pluralist even in desire, vet such
an approach to the desires of a pluralist as Mr. Row-
latt modestly made, we must suppose, indisposed the
Bishop to regard him as the fittest man. It may liere
be unthinkingly remarked, that Mr. "Rowlatt's wish to
unite two pieces of small preferment (the duties of which
are, quite compatible), •was very mod4rate after all ;
but this was the very offence of the thing, for as Aris-
totle remarks, the nature of everything is most clearly
seen in the smallest quantities; and so it is with phi-
, ralities---etheiv.nature is • most' clearly seen by bishops
in -these 'very small 'cases. For example;, Bishop
Bloomfield'eould not abide the thoughts of Mr. Row-
lateg•holding the 'living of St. Bride's, with the
readership of the Temple. The offensive nature of
plurality .Was seen in so small a case; but the, living
of St. Bride's held by the last incumbent, Dr. Allen,
together with the living of Battersea, had not in the
lerst degree -disturbed or scandalized our Right Rey.
Father.—Morning Chronicle.
When Mr. O'Connell published his first letter, in
• reply to the inculpatory statement of Mr. Raphael on
the Carlow job, his sycophants in the Ministerial
press pronounced the defence complete ; and 'so they
woUld if his accuser, instead.of being a mortal man,
had been as the Raphael of Milton was, " an Angel
of light." The cause of the Ministers and O'Con-
nell is too closely identified to allow the scribes of the
Whig-Radical Press to take an impartial view or pro-
nounce a correct opinion upon the " safe speculation"
in which, at the special instance and request of the
Agitator, as proved by his own letters, the Ex-Sheriff
of London invested 2,0001. and gained—a loss of
1,1001. more, besides incurring certain liabilities as to
accounts yet unsettled. ' A safe Speculation, in-
deed." . We I,,uSpect that it was not by such specula-
tions that Mr. Raphael ever became rich enough to
attract the attention, of .IVr. O'Connell's eleetioneer,
ing patronage. Surely when the simple- Moses Prim-
rose at the fair, as related in 'the pleasant story of the.
" Vicar of Wakefield," was induced by a most
plausible gentleman to exchhnge his bit of horse-
flesh for a gross of green- spectacles with copper rims
and shagreen cases, he embarked in quite -as " safe a
speculation" as he who was persuaded to pay for the
Carlow seat beforehand, and did not get it afterwards.
Mr. Raphael has not even been so fortunate as Moses,
for he has not got even a " gross,of green spectacles"
to show for his money. But the experience is valuable
to one who was himself so " green,"and may be pos-
sibly worth the 3,1001. he has paid for it—and the
' liberal donation of scurrility which has been bestowed
upon him into the bargain. BUt though his para-
sites in the Whig-Radical press pronounced Mr.
O'Connell's defence complete, it is quite clear that he
did not think so himself, or if he did, he forgot the
proverb- about " letting well alone." His first epistle,
- along with that of his Carlow friend, was very well
contrived to mystify the transaction. His second epistle
is more explanatory, and has enabled us to express
our opinion as to the illegality of the contract, which
we professed ourselves incompetent to do before,
in consequence of the obscurity in which the contract
was' involved. Some of our Contemporaries have quoted
large portions of the Statutes applicable to the parties to
illegal contracts touching seats in Parliament • but then
it was difficult to solve the question whether the contract
came within the proviso contained in the second section
of the 49th Geo. 111., cap. 118, until the precise object
of it was known. From the first letter of Mr. O'Con-
nell we were led to believe that he intended to Insist
upon the contract being one for money to be paid for
legal expenses bona fide incurred at or concerning the
election. He has in his second letter taken other
grou4, and beyond. all question, as a Morning Con-
temporary has stated, he has upon . his own showing
violated the Act for better securing the independence
and purity of Parliament, by preventing the procuring
or obtaining. of seats in Parliament by corrupt practices.
Let us take Mr. O'Connell's own statement of the
nature of the bargain, and the objects to which the
. money 'was to'be applied. Let us suppose it all true,
although we think Mr. Raphael has. quite as much
_right at least to be believed. in everything he asserts,'