The Sun.
London, England, 1844-08-01 00:00:00

11 E SUN, LONDON, THURSDAY EVENING, AUGUST I, 1844.

Heathcote's. He himself thought that the anonymous
letter- bore more resemblance to tlia writing of
Mr. Heathcote than to that of Mr. Gilbert,
but still the resemblance -was not sufficient
to induce him to condemn Mr. Heathcote. They were
all aware how uncertain was evidence as to handwriting,
and he would call the attention of the House to-a case
which appeared in the " Annual Register" for 1831, in
which a man was indicted before Mr. Justice Alderson
Rh. lending a threatening letter.- Evidence was given
as to the handwriting, and as to the fact of the paper on,
on which the threatening letter was written being of a
similar quality to that found in the pri oner's possession.
He was found guilty ; and notwithstanding he protested
his innocence, the Judge, in passing sentence, said that
the evidence was sufficient tosatisfy any reasonable man,
and that he would rather trust to such evidence than to
the most solemn declaration even made. on the scaffold.
The man was sentenced to transportation for life. The
judge and the jury then retired for a short time, and the
son of the prisoner, 17 years of age, acknowledged that
he had written the letter without the knowledge of his
faher ; and being furnished with pen and ink, he wrote
varyingat the table a letter, only in a few words from
the letter which was the subject of the indictment ; and
which, when compared with it, left no doubt on the mind
of any one on the subject ; and all the words which were
mis-spelt in the threatening letter were similarly mis-
spelt in the one written at the table. On the return of
the judge the copy was laid before him. His Lordship
expressed his surprise that the facts had not been
brought forward before. He said it looked like a trick,
but though the application came late, it was never too late
to do what was right. He was tried upon two other
indictments of a similar nature in both of which he was
acquitted. The son was convicted and sentenced to
seventeen years' transportation, and the father received
the royal pardon. He thought the,Government had dis-
missed Mr. Heathcote upon evidence of tin unsatisfactory
character, and they were not justified; 'on such evidence
in convicting Mr. Heathcote of falsehood, and leaving a
stain on his reputation which *must be prejudicial to his
prospects through life. It should be recollected that in
dismissing this gentleman under existing circumstances
they were inflicting a stain upon his, reputation, and the
Right Hon. Baronetshould be very cautious in exercis-
ing a power which might deprive a man of the means
of earning an honest livelihood.(Hear, hear.) Alr.
Heathcote was not dismissed because he had discharged
the duties of his office negligently or inefficiently, or
because he was not a useful and 'diligent officer.—
(Hear, hear.) There had been no complaint of the kind
against him—there was no evidence to show that
he had not discharged his duty with fidelity and 'assi-
duity. Mr. Horner, the inspector of factories, stated
that if Mr. Heathcote could free himself from this accu-
sation of writing this anonymous letter, he would be
very glad to act with hien in a cordial and harmonious
spirit in future. The prevailing opinion in Lancashire
was that he had not been fairly dealt with. He (Mr.
M. Gibson) had received letters from several gentlemen
of the highest respectability, from mill-owners in Lan-
cashire, some of whom Mr. Heatheote had prosecuted
under the Factory Act, and from extensive mercantile
houses in Manchester, and all these gentlemen stated
their firm belief that, frcim the manner in which Mr. .
Heathcote had discharged his duty, they could not be-
lieve him to be capable of so gross a falsehoOd, and en-
treated of the Government to grant a full and fair in-
quiry, and to give Mr. Heathcote an opportunity of being
heard personally in his own vindication. He did not
quarrel with the power which the Government possessed
—it was, perhaps, very often useful, in order
to ensure a proper observance of the duties,
of office that so prompt and effective a power should be
in the hands of the Executive; but, at the same tune he
though that every opportunity should be afforded to the
individual about to be dealt with, to rebut the charge,
and give every explanation in his power. It should not
be forgotten that a third party had . come forward
and avowed the authorship of the letter ; and with
so strong a fact, he though he was fully justified in mov-
ing that the petition of Mr Heathcote be taken into con-
sideration. -

Sir J. GRAHAM said he had no reason' to complain
of the tone or manner in which the Hon. Member had
brought forward the question. He would assure the
House, that of all official duties, nothing was more pain-
ful than that of dismissal.—(Hear, hear.) Since he had
the honour of holding office under the Crown, this was
only the second case in which he felt obliged to dismiss
an official. The Hon. Gentleman was correct in stating
that his (Sir James Graham's) decision was impar-
tial ; it was so ; he did not know—had never
seen or heard of—Mr. Heathcote until this affair. Many
persons possessing great influence, and to whose opinions
he would be most anxious to defer, had endeavoured to
persuade him to re-consider his decision, and, amongst
others, his Noble Friend the Member for North Lan-
cashire. He had acted with the utmost deliberation. He
had not come to his deeision without weighing all the
facts of the case ; but he felt it his painful duty to state
to the House that nothing which he had heard before or
during that night had shaken his conviction. It should
be remembered that Mr. Heathcote held his situation as
factory sub-inspector under Mr. Horner, and it should
also be recollected that he held that place during plea-
sure. An anonymous letter had been received by the
Hon. Member for KnaresboroughArsigned •4 An Oyer-
looker." This letter was placed is his hands by Lord
Ashley. It was sent to Mr. Horner, and that gentleman
at once recognised it as the letter of Mr. Heathcote.
In this letter there was the, strongest internal evidence
that it was written by an inspector or sub• inspector of
factories. The particular mode in which the books were
kept appeared in this letter; the time-book, which stated
the hour at which the mill started, the time the mill
stopped for meals, and other such particulars.--(Here
the Right Hon. Gentleman took up a copy of the anony-
mous letter)—that letter could be no other than the
production of a person intimately conversant with these
subjects. The moment Mr. Horner received the letter,
he knew it to be Mr. Heathcote's. The other inspector (Mr.
Saunders) also gave it as his opinion that the writing
was that of Mr. Heathcote. The fact of Mr. Heathcote's
communicating with any Member of that House, without
the co n sen t of his superior officer, although it must be rather
an original mode of proceeding, would not in his
(Sir James Graham's) opinion have involved any great
degree of culpability. He would not have attached much
importance to that; but the whole substance of the of-
fence was that when Mr. Horner asked Mr. Heathcote if he
had written that letter, he had solemnly denied it; that
was, in reality the whole matter. Mr. Homer after this
denial forwarded this anonymous letter, and Mr.
Heathcote's letter of denial, to him (Sir J. Graham), and
thus the whole matter was brought under his considera-
tion. Upon the reception of these documents he di-
rected his Hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State to
write to Mr. Heathcote, asking for explanation, and to
give him an opportunity of reconsidering the matter;
he held Mr.Heathcote's answer to that letter in his hand,
in which he stated—" Sir, I have the honour to acknow-
ledge the receipt of your letter of the 19th inst., and I beg
leave to request that you will inform Sir James Graham
that I most positively deny having written the anony-
mous letter addressed to Mr. Ferrand, and signed An
Overlooker: (Signed) " JOHN HEAT 'MOTE."
By the oddest coincidence possible the paper, ink, and
writing was the very same as that on which the
anonymous letter was written, and this formed the
strongest conviction that both letters were written by
the same hand. This was his (Sir J. Graham's) opinion,
but he did not trust to his own judgment. He put all
the letters into the hands of Mr. genie, the Solicitor to
the Treasury, who forwarded the two letters signed by
Mr. Heathcote, and the anonymous letter, to the in-
spector at the Post-office, who, after the most minute
inspection and comparison, declared he entertained no
doubt but they were the same handwriting. Now, there
was the opinion of a person conversant with Mr.Heathcote's
handwriting (Mr. Horner) and two witnesses, altogether
impartial, the Inspector of the Post-office and he
(Sir James Graham), and their unanimous opinion
was, that they were in the same handwriting.
Having arrived at this conclusion he considered that it
would be impossible for him to retain Mr. Heathcote in
the public service.—(Hear, hear.) The next step in the
matter was Mr. Gilbert, writing a letter to him stating
that he was the author of the anonymous letter. He
compared Mr. Gilbert's with Mr. Heathcote's letters,
and had no doubt that the handwriting of the anony-
mous letter, and that of Mr. Gilbert were entirely dif-
ferent. He however, took precisely the same steps in
this as in the former instance, and the inspector of the
Post-office was of opinion that they were not written by
the same hand. The case quoted by the Hon. Member
for Manchester, and the decision of Baron Alderson did
not at all support the Hon. Member's case. In that case
the writing of the son was different from the father, and
entirely corresponded with the letter produced in evi-
dence so there was no parity whatever. He thought the
facts of this case were conclusive against Mr. Heathcote.
In conclusion, he must say, that if he was to be respon-
sible for the mode in which be performed the duties of
his office, he ought to be allowed to exercise his own
judgment.
Mr. BROTHERTON defended the character of Mr.
Heathcote, and contended that the Right Hon. Baronet
was labouring under a mistake. The letter in question
was written on the -25th of March, and Mr. Heatheote•
had satisfied him that be was from home on that day.
In the next place Mr. Heathcote had solemnly denied
that he had written the letter, and after that Mr. Gil-
bert had acknowledged himself the author of it., He
(Mr. Brotherton) had examined all the documents con-
nected with this case, and his firm conviction was that
Mr. Heathcote did not write the letter. And after all
there was nothing in the letter of any consequence.
There were two sentences as to the necessity of inspec-
tors of factories residing in their districts, and no
doubt this would create a prejudice in the minds of
Messrs. Horner and Saunders. On comparing Mr.
Heathcote's letter with the anonymous one, ho (Mr.
Brotherton) perceived a difference in the characteristics.
Further than this, he had that day received a letter from
Mr. Gilbert, which was in the same writing as the
anonymous letter. (The Hon. Gentleman here handed
the letter to several Hon. Members round him, .who
compared it with the anonymous one.) Mr. Heathcote
was opposed to him in politics, but, believing him to have
been unjustly treated, 'and knowing him to be a respect-
able man, hp had taken up his case, and had done all he
could to get him reinstated.
Mr.'BRIGHT thought the internal evidence in the
letters in question was not so conclusive as the Right
Hon. Gentleman imagined. As to its containing phrases
used by inspectors of factories, that could be easily ac-
counted for. Such phrases were common to everybody
residing in Lancashire, and any person writing on the
subject of factories Would be sure to use them. The
letter of Mr. Homer to Mr. Heathcote was not of a na-
ture to lead Mr. Heathcote to suppose he had committed
any great offence. What motive was there to induce
him to deny it, if he wrote it ? On the other hand, Mr.
Gilbert made a solemn affidavit that he was the author
of the letter. The Right Hon. Baronet pointed to the sig-
nature of the letter—"l am, An Overlooker," and to the
resemblanceit bore to the other. Why, he (Mr. Bright)
would' not, or,- to UM • a common phrase, hang a dog on
such evidence. The letters " k." and " r "were as diffe-
rent 115 they could well be, so that the evidence from the

letters was rather favourable to Mr. Heathcote thanother
wise. This gentleman had been in London for more than
seven months,' endeavouring by every means to get his case
considered by the Home-office, for the sake -of having
his character cleared, if he could not be restored to his
situation. He did not believe that a man would loie so

•
much time and money, if he did not possess•honest feel-
ings. He understood that Mr Horner would-not now
object to act cordially with Mr. Heatheote ; - and if the
Right Hon. Baronet could only be induced to regard the
question, in a different light, there would be no difficulty
on this point. The person charged solemnly denied hav-
ing written the letter. A second person had avowed
that he was the author of it, and a third party had de.
dared that he induced the second-per'ion to write it. He
would ask whether, in any court of justice, this weight
of evidence was not enough to bear down the unfortunate
suspicion that had taken possession of the Right lion.
Baronet's mind ?

Mr. B. ESCOTT said it was a'question whether this
was a case that ought to be discussed in the House of
Commons; but when a question of this kind Was brought
before them, it being one of great importance to an in-
dividual, they ought, from a sense of justice, to express
their opinion honestly on the -state of the facts. He
must say that there. was one deficiency in the statement
of the Right Hon. Baronet. One of the reasons he had
given for dismissing Mr. Heatheote was, because ho had
denied having written. a letter, which the Right Hon.-
Baronet thought he had Written: Now had this gentle-
man or either of. the parties,' been called before the
authorities of the Home-office in order to defend them-
selves ? He did not . think the evidence Oisimilarity of
handwriting was alone sufficieat.
Mr. M. SUTTON denied that the similarity of the
writing was alone the ground of the. dismissal. There
was also the resemblance of the ink and paper. He
contended that Mr. Heathcote alone had published the
ground of his dismissal to the 'world.
Mr. HAWES said, the question. -was who wrote the
anonymous letter, Mr. Heathcote or Mr. Gilbert ? The
• evidence against Mr. Heathcote was, that the real letter
agreed with the anonymous one. .On the other hand,
Mr. Gilbert sip he wrote the anonymous letter. But
then it was said, that Mr.'Gilbert'shand-writing.was dissi-
milar to the anonymous letter ; and that Mr. Heathcote's
real letter was similar to the. anonymous one. Now, if
they assumed that Mr. Gilbert disguised his hand-
writing, that would account for -one- great difficulty in
the case; namely, the dissimilarity in the hand-writing
between Mr. Gilbert's real letter, and the anonymous
letter. Then, when -they considered that Mr. Gilbert
ha l access to Mr. Heathcote's. office and papers, it
would not be surprising that the-anonymous letter should
exhibit-a style of hand-writing somewhat similar to-Mr.
Heathcote's. They had, on the other hand, the positive
denial of Mr. Heathcote, that he wrote the letter, and
the acknowledgment of Mr. Gilbert that he wrote it.
He did not think that the internal evidence was of muob
value. It principally consisted of 'a tabular statement,
to which a person only in the official situation of Mr.
Heathcote could have access. But then It was known
that Mr. Gilbert had access to his his office.
Mr. WAICLEY said it was one Of the most difficult
things -in the world to decide with regard to hand.-
. writing. He knew of a case in which a most distin-
. guished author was provoked with some handwriting
that was shown him, and yet it was his own. He hoped
the Right Hon. Gentleman would recollect that this was
a factory question, and that lie would reconsider his
decision.—(Laughter.) The Right Hon. Gentleman had
asked the House to reconsider their opinions on a former
occ.asion, "and the House consented. The Houie now
asked the Right Hon. Gentleman to •reconaider his 'opi-
nion, and he hoped the Right Hon. Gentleman would
consent. He did not think that the Right Hon. Gentle-
man had adopted the best means of coming to a correct
conchision, that was, by getting both Mr. Heathcote
and Mr. Gilbert to write a copy of the letter. If he did
that, he was sure everybody would be satisfied with the
decision to which he had come. _

Mr. MILNER GIBSON replied. Tie entreated the
Right Hon. Gentleman to consider whether the evidence
of handwriting were sufficient, and, if there were any
doubt, to re-open the case.
Sir JAMES GRAHAM said he only wished to say
that the question whether Mr. Ileatheote had been
guilty of falsehood, or not, was a question, not raised
by him, but deliberately raised . by Mr. Heatheote
himself.

The House then divided, when there appeared 7---
For the motion
_ .
AgAinst it • 23

Majority against the m0ti0n......
• ART-UNIONS.

On the motion for going into committee on the Art-
Unions Bill, "
Mr. WYSE said the Bill, as it now stood, applied
only to the art-unions of-Dublin and Edinburgh. - lie
proposed so to change the preamble as to make it
applicable to the art-unions of England, and particularly
to that of London. _

.The Bill then went through Committee, and certain
amendments were agreed to.
The other orders of the day were then disposed of,
and the House adjourned at a Quarter before Twelve.

MAGAZINE DAY.
BLACKWOOD'S MAGAZINE.
The subject of our disastrous campaigns in
" Affghanistan" is ably treated in the Number before
us, but notwithstanding the writer's assertion to the
contrary, it is a subject completely exhausted, and on
which the public has long since made up its mind.
As for interest, whatever it might have possessed
when the matter was fresh in popular -recollection,
little or none now attaches to it. It has been a nine
days' wonder, and like other themes of moment, has
passed to the tomb of the Capulets, only to be disin-
terred by some future Gibbon or Robertson—if such
should ever again rise among us—when discussing the
politics of the memorable year 1840. Still, despite
this drawback, the article on " Affghanistan" is worth
reading, and, considering the decided 'politics of
Blackwood, is remarkably moderate in its tone. The
writer avers that it was our fear.of Russian intrigue
that originated the humiliating campaigns in ques-
tion, and this opinion is a correct one. So intense
were our apprehensions on this subject, that we sacri
ficed to them a fine army of upwards of ten thousand
men ; and yet, not five years afterwards, the gigantic
and menacing Russian phantom, the bare contempla-
tion of whose manoeuvres on the frontiers of our
Indian territories had' thrown us all into such strong
hysterics, was actually a resident in our metropolis,
walking abroad in our streets, visiting the fair mem-
bers of our aristocracy, without devouring one of
them by way of a lunch, dining at Windsor Castle,
reviewing troops, and flinging about gold snuff-boxes
with as much nonchalance as if they were merely 30
many fourpenny pieces ! The whole history of this
short-lived Russophobia of ours, which cost the coun-
try so many thousand lives and such immense sums of
money, will form but an inglorious chapter in the po-
fitteal annals of the nineteenth century. But na-
•tions; like individuals, have their moments of weak-
ness and puerility, and John Bull has always been
remarkable for periodical fits of foolery, during the
prevalence of which he cuts the most extraordinary
capers possible, and makes himself the laughing-stock
of Europe. " Etched Thoughts by the Etching
Club" is a lively, good-humoured notice of a volume
of poems illustrated with several admirable engravings.
Our readers will no doubt thank us for giving them
the opportunity of admiring some pathetic lines en-
titled " The Veteran's Return :"

" The.old yew, deck'd in even's parting, beams,
From his red trunk reflects a ruddier ray;
While, flickering through the lengthen'd shadow,
. gleams
Of gold athwart the dusky branches play.
The jackdaws, erst so bustling on the tower,
Have ceased their cawing clamour from on high ;
And the brown bat, as nears the twilight hour,
Circles—the lonely tenant of the sky.
" The soldier there, ere pass'd to distant climes;
On Sabbath morn his early mates would meet;
There list the chant of the familiar chimes,
And the fond glance of young affection greet.
There, too, at eve—before the twilight grey
Led the dark hours, when sprites are wont to
walk—
With his sweet Nancy how he joy'd to stray,
And tell his rustic love in homely talk.
" Now, home return'd, far other thoughts he owns,
Though still the same the scene • that meets his
view !

The same sun glistens o'er the lichen'd stones—
Scarce one year more seems to have gnarl'd the
yew.
There, too, the hamlet where his boyhood pass'd
Sends, as of old, its curls of smoke to ken—
So near, his stalwart arm a stone might cast
Among the cots that deck the coppiced glen !

" But ere the joys of that domestic glade
Can wipe the tear from off his rugged brow,
A stone beneath the yew-tree's ebon shade
Deep o'er his heart a heavier shade doth throw.
(Oh ! sad, indeed, when thus such tidings come,
That stun, even ,when by slow degrees they, steal,)
That tablet tells how cold within the tomb
Are hands whose fond warm grasp he long'd to
feel."

We have been much pleased with the story of the
" Love Chase," whose incidents, though somewhat
deficient in novelty, are skilfully worked up in an
arch and sprightly style that at once conciliates the
reader. The "Historical Account of the Canal which
anciently connected the Nile and the Red Sea" may
possibly entertain antiquarians and geographers ; but
the details are prolix, and will have little interest for
the public in general. Readers of monthly 'periodi-
cals care little to be told that " the Nomads or
Hyksos were driven from the throne of Egypt by the
Kings of Thebes," and would much rather hear about
the present intentions of the Egyptian Pacha, as
regards that canal between the Red Sea and the
Mediterranean, which he has so long talked of con-
structing, but which, we fear, is still in nu6ibits, like
the genius of the author. of " Satan." In the review
of Horace Twiss's ‘; Life of Lord Eldon," .we are
informed that an old Manx smuggler was so pleased
with his Lordship for pleading in court for certain
rights to which the inhabitants of the Isle of Man
-asserted that they were entitled, that, in the warmth
of his admiration, he actually offered the future Chan-
cellor—then but a rising young barrister on circuit—
his favourite daughter, with a portion of one hundred
thousand pounds I The offer was a tempting one,
but we apprehend it would not exactly have suited
the views of a lawyer to becOme the son-in-law of
a smuggler, whose wealth had been gained by setting
the laws at defiance. Besides, his Lordship was
already provided with a spouse, and no doubt found
that one wife at a time was quite as much as he could
conveniently manage, and that two would have been
a superfluous luxury. We subjoin a few diverting
ane4dotes from the review in question :
" ' I had a walk in the New Inn Hall garden with Dr.
Johnson, Sir Robert Chambers, and some other gentle-
men, (Chambers was principal of the Hall, and.Vinerian
prothssor of law. .He was at this period on the point of
prodeeding to India as judge.) - Sir Robert was gather-
ing :snails; and throwing them over the wall into his
neighbour's garden. The doctor attacked him roughly,
and ,Charged his condUct as being unneiglibourly. "Sir,"
said! Robert, "my neighbour is a Dissenter." " Oh,"
said; the doctor, " if so, toss away, toss away as hard as
you, ran! This was evidently one of Johnson's odd
freaks, a piece of his growling humour; for though no
man', disliked sectarianism more, no man had
a stronger sense of charity' to all. His man-
nersi now and then exhibited strange absence. Lord
Eld4n says that he had seen him standing for a con-
sideTable' time, with one foot on each side of the kennel
of the High-street. of Oxford, gazing at the water. It
was; proverbially dangerous to . contradict him. Dr.
Mortimer, head of Lincoln College, happened occasion-
ally 'to interrupt him, by saying, " I deny that," while
Johnson was holding forth. At length he said, " Sir,
sir, You must have forgotten that an author has said,
(he then repeated in Latin), one ass will deny more in
one hour, than a hundred philosophers will prove in a
hundred years."
"During the year 1774 and 1775; John Scott held'the
officp of a tutor of University college • but he appears
to have left- the duty to Fisher arid William Scott,
his brother, those two dividing the emoluments. How-
evel he was more importantly employed when he gave
lectures on the law as deputy to Sir Robert Chambers,
for which he. had 601. a year. His first essay was sulti-
cien4. ridiculous. The law professor sent him his first
lectatre, which he was to read immediately to 'the stu-
dents, and which he began without knowing its con-
tenth. It happened-to be on the statute 4th and sth of
Philip and Mary, on young men running away with
young women. " Fancy me," said his Lordship, " read-
ing,iwith about 140 boys and young men giggling at the
professor." While Scott was eating his terms at the
Mildle Temple, he had some opportunities of seeing
Mr. Sergeant Hill, the great lawyer of his day, emi-
nent for learning, and scarcely less so for eccentricity.
Hilli one day stopped Scott in the hall, and said,
"Thfay, young gentleman, do you think herbage and-
pannage rateable to the poor's-rate ?" . Scott replied,
" that he could not presume to give an opinion to so
leer ed a personage.' " Upon my word," said the ser •
gea t, " you are a pretty sensible young gentleman—l
don t often meet with such. If I had asked Mr. Bur-
gess', a young leader upon our circuit, the question, he
would have told me that I was an old fool." Hill
begqn an argument in the King's Bench thus :—" My
Lord Mansfield- and judges, I beg your pardon.'
'• 11hy, brother Hill, do you ask our pardon ?" . " My
Lords," said he, " I have seventy-eight cases to cite."
" Seventy-eight cases !" said Lord Mansfield, " you
can Weyer have our pardon if you cite seventy-eight
cases." After the Court had given its decision, which

was against the sergeant's client, Lord Mansfield said,
" Now, brother Hill, that the judgment is given, you
can have no objection, on account of your client, to tell
us your real opinion, and whether you do not think we
are 'light ; you know how we all value your opinion and
Judgment." hill wished to be excused ; but as he
always thought it his duty to do what the Court de-
sire(, " Upon my word," said ho, " I did not think
that there ,were four men in the world who could have
give; such an ill-founded judgment as you four, my
Lolls, have prongunced," - This style, however; must
have, been now and then intolerable."

the life, and essentially belonging to the present day. !
The fact is, none are so apt to condemn '
the insipid sameness of the existing • state
of society, as those who are unable adequately
to pourtray its nice peculiarities, which exhibit a thou-
sand different lights and shades, though we will admit
that they are not so broadly marked as in the olden
time. A Tale. of the Wars _of Marlborough" is a
Passable narrative; from the pen of Mr. Curling. The
Gaol Chaplain"- contains a. powerfully-written story,
illustrative of the prodigious folly and atrocity of the
game-laws, one of the few remaining relics of the
barbarous feudal times. Justly remarks the author,
" He must be eagle-eyed, indeed, who could detect
in these laws a grain of that Christian philosophy
upon which we boast that our institutions are founded."
In the biographical sketch, " Eton Scenes and Eton
men," there are some twaddling personal remi-
niscences of certain individuals, in whom nine-tenths
of the public take .not the slightest interest. " Phy-
siology of London Life" puts forth some sensible ob-
servations on the subject of the House of Commons.
The following passage may, perhaps, amuse our
readers, and we subjoin it accordingly :
" Members take,up' a thing, as the phrase is, to make
the subject of their researches. One takes up the Irish
Church, and annually knocks a good many • thickly-
printed columns of reports out- of that ; another has an
annual shot at the estimates ; a third makes a motion
for the repeal of the corn-laws ; and so on. There is a
well understood division of labour in the House, every
man 'holding his own sprat, whale, or herring, as the
case may be, by its own proper tail. The vast numbers
of young men about .both Houses of Parliament, but
especially the Hotise -of CoMmons, is another leading
general idea, that necessarily- • strikes the observant
stranger. There are few noble families in the land of
any territorial distinction, who are not represented in a
twofold manner ; by themselves in the Upper,.. by their •
connexions in the Lower House ; and the wry young
Members that crowd the side-galleries, and congregate
in a body below the bar, are generally of noble families.
Yet there are young and youngish men of distinction in
the House who are plebeians ; these are generally of the
class of working Members, who labour at the business of
legislation, 'whereas the noble; gentle, and very often
simple young gentle Men we. have referred to above only
play at law.,givers; as they do sometimes at.soldiers. An-
other remarkable thing in 'the House of Commons is,
the want of independent actions on the part of indivi-
dual-Members, and their almost military subordination
to their leaders. It is a necessary thing, perhaps, for
practical purposes, that this discipline sloald be main-
tained, but it is, nevertheless, curious' to see how com-
pletely the representative • subsides into the- partisan.
You would imagine that the House consisted of repre-
sentatives of Lord John Russell and Sir Robert Peel—
of the Ins and Outs, rather than of the country ; nor is
any man in a more hopeless plight than the lean who
takes an independent course of action, or ref Uses to bind
himself to the interests of one side of the House or the
other. He is sneered at and th warted in every way; called
an impracticable, and left alone in his patriotism and his
glory. This. isolation results from the selfishness, the party;
class, and personal interests of the ()Teat mass of.Mem-
hers ; .they will not act, or vote, with men who are not
consistent to a pirty, as • if a party is consistent with
itself ; as if time, and the progress of pUblic opinion, and
the pressure of events, do not necessarily demand changes
to the minds of men, often amounting to the reversal of
their fixed, and as they fondly thought, correct notions
of conduct. A want of large and general sympathy with
the unrepreSented,'or badly-represented classes, is the
leadiugdefect of the House ; but for this who can say
that the House is to blame-? The electors choose the
House, and if they are selfish, or negligent, or corrupt in
their thoice-; if they choose their representatives for
everything, or somethirio• or nothing, except' what ought.
Ito be the guiding motive of their .choice—as tried inte-
grity, experience, years, common sense, and common
sympathies with mankind:--,the fault is in • them, not in
those they send to the Commons' House of Parliament.
A pleasing trait of the House is, its fairness and genero-
sity towards any speaker who has business to speak, or
who has got anything to say ; the House always listens:
to such a one with attention. A-new Member, likewise,
is always well received,-anti his debut marked by consi-
deration for hisfeelicgs on first addressing so formidable'
an assembly-; the Cry of New ,Member New Member !'
' Hear ! hear I' gives him _confidence, and encourages
him to proceed but if, unfortunately, he is tried, and
found wanting, he will nod-again be heard with any de-
gree of marked attention. • The House is highly discri-
minative in-this respect ; a man of character, weight,
authority, or information upon any particular point, is
heard with general attention ; a Member, on the con-
trary, who talks for talk's sake—and of these there are,
unfortunately, too many, is not listened to,except by the
reporters ; he crieth out in the House, and no man re-
gardeth him. If a phonometer, ,or instrument for mea-
suring noise, could be invented, you would thereby be
enabled to form a pretty accurate judgment of the re-
spective merits of the several speakers. When Peel or
Russell are up, the noise is at zero; when emiddling
Members are talking there is a temperate noise ; but
when from the back-benches, foolish, loud-talking, .igno-
rant, forward'young fellows,. Without information or OA,
lity, except in their own conceit, insist upon jawing, the
noise reaches the boiling-point, and the Prater becomes,
certainly not silent, but certainly unheard. You cannot.
hear a word he says, but you see his nether jaw vibrat-
ing up and down, like that of a donkey nustieattng a
tough thistle."