MEMORANDA OF MEN AND THINGS. LORD BROUGHAM AND MR. O'CONNELL.

New Zealander, Volume 1, Issue 32, 10 January 1846, Page 4

MEMORANDA OF MEN AND THINGS. LORD BROUGHAM AND MR. O'CONNELL.

We should like to see a well drawn parallel, '•after the manner of Plutarch," between Mr. O'Connell and Lord Brougham. They have been certainly the two most famous agitating orators of our day, and there ate man) points both of sin ilaiity and contrast, the examination of which, might throw no inconsiderable light upon the cbaiacters of both. Upon the whole, we should suppose that an impartial historian or biographer would conclude that, of the two, O'Connell is by many degrees the greater man. He is so by position being, the representative of popular feeling of a nation, whereas Bioughdin has lived torepresent but his own peculiar eccentricities. — Taking an earlier period of Brougham's career, however, and looking at both men as the eloquent promoters and champions of political discontent and disturbance they are more upon a level. As public speakeis upon all sorts of subjects, and under eveiy variety of circumstances, theieis this distinction to be taken between them, that, while O'Connell has been most successful by appealing to the native feelings and home-bred sympathies of his numerous and often misguided audiences, Brougham has generally addressed some aitificial fragment of the understanding — some intellectual affectation ol the day. We are not among those who look.upon O'Connell, as a particularly honest man in his public capacity, but still thereis a kind of genuineness in his character of which there is no trace in Brougham's, and an abandonment to«real kindly impulse which is not in the nature of the ex-Chancellor. It cannot, we thiq(k, be questioned that Lord Brougham has on some occasions, reached a height of severe, powerful, and finished oiatory, far beyond the reach of O'Connell's genius of acquirements, and it must be admitt' d that he has never, on pubic occasions, descended to the low, familiar, peisuasive slang of which O'Connell lias made such frequent and effective use ; bu» on the other-band, Brougham is ever in heroics, while O'Connell, ft equently adopts the vein of earnest common sense, and urges his views upon his hearers with a familiar knowledge and an unexag^eraled strain »of persuasive talk, which is a thousand times more convincing than the astounding and overwhelming oratory of Biougham in his most inspired moments,

As to variety, there is no comparison between the men. Brougham, indeed, attacks a va»>t variety ofstibjects, but treats most of them in the same or in a similar manner. He gives you a bold and dashing stream of words (sometimes a torrent)— words admirably chosen to expound the matter with force, or to express eulogy or sarcasm. But in regard tOßlyle, he cannot rise and fall, and go hither and ihither, like O'Connell. When we lead O'ConneH's speeches in Ireland, he seems to go too far in eveiy thing, but that is ! the habit of the country. The ne quid nimis is not understood there. But weseein England that O'Connell can exercise the disciiminative art of a gentleman of information and good bleeding, though we know very w ell that he is capable also of any other kind of style, from the lowest slang of St. Giles's lo the most impassioned oratory of the highest assemblies. Brougham's oratory is not impassioned— it is sometimes instinct with energy — fiery — brilliant; but we do not recognise in it the out-pourings of the heart. Even his wrath does not seem to have life-blo od in it— it jS an effusion of the brain. Since O'Connell's last visit to the British House of Commons he seems determined to show him self in his best aspect, that of an earnest reasoner upon matteis with which he is well acquainted. His speech of Monday night upon the Irish Colleges question reads ad mi i ably. To be sine Lord Claude Hamilton, who heard it, said the lion and learned Gentleman was not equal to himself, but the Noble Lord though " a very fine young man," is not perhaps the most competent critic in the world upon the oratory of a political adversary. At all events we cannot have the honour of agreeing with him. The Noble Loid said thatMr.O'Connellwas on that occasion "unwillingly doing the bidding of others, with whose narrow vieus and bigoted feelings he did not coincide." We w ish the Noble Loid, on other occasions, a mOl e becoming task than that of imputing narrow views and bigoted feelings to those who resist a scheme of education for you ng men from which scheme religion is intentional ly and deliberatly excluded. Mr. O'Connell's example might with advantage' have been followed by the Noble Lord. Hesaid he was sorry her Majesty's Government persevered with the Bill} but he did not arraign their motives in intioducing it. The aclions of all men, he said, were governed by mixed motives, and he was quite free to confess that the main motive of the Government was to conciliate Ireland. Nevertheless, he could not support the Bill. No doubt the desire of her Majesty's Minis tet's is to conciliate Ireland, or, in other words, to make themselves popular in Ireland. For this they are willing to make very great sacrifices of principle, but they do not seem to be capable of acting in respect to Irish affairs with auy thing like sound judgment. Suppose their educational measures were far less objectionable than they are, still any such measures for such a time must bear the reproach of being totally inadequate legislative government. As Mr. O'Connell plainly told the House, "Ireland is in a frightful state." Every day's post brings accounts of fresh outrages and continued minders, and while this state of things plainly and loudly calls for the interference of strong hand ot corrective government, our Ministers are heard making a silly rout about "conciliation " and " education," as if things had reached such a point of tranquil prosperity in Ireland as to render these objects the first for legislative attention With gi eat good sense did Mr. O'Connell remind the Government and the House of Commons that something very different was wanting in Ireland :—: — What people on earth were in the same con dition? Lord Devon's commission declared their misery, but held out no hope of redress. In all the multiplicity of measures before that House, there was not one for the relief of that terrible distress. What were the consequences of such a state of things! Agrarian outrages were on the increase in It eland ; year after year they were increasing. Murders, also, were on the inciease. He did not mean the wholesale murders perpretated by clearing land, for those men never heard of; but theassasinations arising out of that system on the part of those disposessed of their only shelter upon earth, by themselves or their incensed fiiends and relatives Murders were spreading to the north, and agrariau disturbances were beginning to be felt in Cavan, in Fermanagh, and in other parts of Ulster. Were the gentlemen of the House of Commons aware of the situation of Ireland ? fie was afraid not. And yet there was no possibility of doubting the evidence on lohich it was shown. A whole people were staroini/, and the Government was talking to them about education. They should feed them iirst. There was p Bill before the other House about fencing the land in Ireland, and calling on the tenantry of that country to vest their capital in impioveinenls, on the strength of the security it offeied them. The capital of the tenantiy of Ireland? The case of Ireland was one for which, if they honestly bestirred themselves to provide a remedy, the Queen's Government would get the assistance of men of every party in the Mate. It is very true that we may retort upon Mr O'Connell. We may tell him that if the people be so poor, it is the moie shame for him to wring so many pence out of them as subscriptions towards "agitation," and to turn their attention, as he constantly does, to topic* of political discontent, instead of giving them good advice to mind their woik, and to try to make themselves independent by their own industry. All this may be thiown in the teeth of Mr. O'Connell, yet this does not excuse the folly of the Government which employs itself in tiding "to conciliate" the people of whom Mi. O'ConneJl is the leader, by measures which can have no practical ell'ect upon their lawless and miserable condition. It is not conciliatory government alone which Ireland requires Tlieie should be punishment and repression of what is bad, as well as conciliation and cultivation of what is good. The policy of the Ministers towards Ireland at the present juncture is puerile lo the last degree.