stead of even the general good will, which even the ordinary intercourse of business produces, each man will feel as though his neighbour were ready to spring at his throat: all will be mistrust, irritated feeling, malignancy, hatred. And, alas! how long will such passions exist in Irish bosoms, and not break forth into action! It has been asserted, that if this plan were adopted, it would be merely retaliation for the Protestants having nothing but Protestant servants; which, it is said, is proved by the circumstance of the advertisement for places constantly containing a statement that the advertiser is of the Established Church. That in some Protestant families a preference may be given to Protestant servants, is very possible; but it certainly does not go beyond that; for it is a constant practice for families, Protestant in politics as well as in religion, to have the majority of their servants Catholic. It is natural, indeed, that it should be so-so vast a preponderance of Catholics existing in the class of life from which servants are taken. But, even granting for a moment that it had been the custom for Protestants to have none but Protestants for their servants, the cases of this and of exclusive dealing are, by no means, parallel. A servant is the inmate of your house; some people of strict habits of religion might feel very serious annoyance at having persons of a different faith constantly under their roof. But, as regards the buying goods, the case is wholly different. There can be no individual annoyance, if the things be of good quality, arising from the religious belief of the seller. It can surely matter very little, whether it were a Catholic or Protestant hand that cut out and sewed a coat, if the coat be a good one; nor, should we think, would a leg of mutton have a worse flavour, from the heterodoxy of the butcher who killed the sheep. Here the religion never comes into question at all, and we really cannot see why it should even be asked. But in the state in which Ireland is at present, such a measure, as a cessation of commercial intercourse between Catholic and Protestant, would, besides the terrible pecuniary distress it must create, bring the jealousies and distrusts that may now exist to a pitch of hatred and malevolence, which it would take years to eradicate. Even in a merely commercial point of view, we can conceive no measure more likely to do incalculable mischief than one of this description. Many and many an honest, thriving shopkeeper, of perhaps a small scale of business, would be ruined at once, by the desertion of half his customers. Instead of a regular sale, moderate profit, and a comfortable and happy home, his business leaves him at a blow-his hopes are as unavoidable as they are heavy-his debts press upon him, and he is sent to rot in a gaol, while his wife and children are left to starve. Such, we are convinced, would be the consequences of this measure, and that to a most wide-spreading extent. We care not whether the evil would fall more heavily upon the Catholic or the Protestant; they are all human beings-and we cannot bear that they should be driven to extremities such as we are convinced would ensue. It would be difficult, indeed, to figure to oneself a state of society existing on terms so opposed to all the ties and charities which have hitherto bound it together. In Ireland, it is true, that there has been much disunion, much bad blood, arising from this very question of Catholic and Protestant. But this would be placing a final barrier between them-neighbours would turn from neighbour, as from the man who was depriving him of bread-no feeling of friendliness and union could continue to exist—it would, indeed, fix the most determined and malignant enmity for ever in their breasts, and make it an inheritance which would descend to their children. We trust, however, that no such measure will be attempted. The leaders of the Catholics, have, of late, displayed a moderation, which it would be melancholy, indeed, to see broken through by such an act as this. Let them pause before they inflict such a scourge upon their country their power, we admit, is great, and we have not hitherto wished it less-but their responsibility is awful. Would they drive their fellow-creatures to ruin and despair? The propagation of exclusive dealing, while it produced great immediate misery, would also do important harm to the progress of the Catholic Question. There are many, who, if the advocates of a political doctrine take a reprehensible step, visit their misdoing upon the doctrine itself. 'Exclusive dealing" would turn many an advocate for emancipation into a decided enemy. The reasoning that would operate this change must be bad; but we cannot say the same of the feeling. 66 We trust, however, that our apprehensions are altogether premature. Irishmen surely will, wilfully, never bring such a plague upon Ireland. 26th. We have read the following report with an amazement which has almost occasioned us to doubt its accuracy. Still, what is here stated, if it be not correct, must, from its nature, be a wilful misrepresentation and that we do not think occurs among papers of the class of the Chronicle, from whence we take the report. "MARY-LA-BONNE.-Fire Engines.-Yesterday, Mr. Williams, of Stafford-street, New-road, was summoned to pay the legal fees to the fire engines, for extinguishing a fire in his chimney. A lad, who described himself, on his cross-examination, as getting his living any how he could,' deposed that he saw a large crowd collected in the street, and a great blaze out of the chimney-pot of No. 6. Mr. W. was about to speak, when Mr. Griffiths interrupted him with Sir, the case is proved-there's an end of the business.' "Mr. Williams: The witness has proved rather too much; I will prove that, so far from a blaze, there was no fire at all. I was in the house, and, if I could be sworn, would depose to the fact. Mr. Griffiths: You can't prove a negative. "Mr. Williams: Not an abstract negative, but I can disprove a contingent negative. I have my neighbours present to prove, that prior to the collection of any crowd, at the first cry of fire, they had watched the chimney, being in positions from which they must have seen flame or sparks, had any such existed; they will depose that there were neither; that there was not even a greater degree of smoke than is every day seen from kitchen chimneys.' "Mr. Griffiths: But the boy has sworn that there was a flame. "Mr. Williams: It is a contest of evidence for the magistrate to decide. The neighbourhood is most vile, and the boy can give no account of himself, but that he gets his living how he can. He should be cross-examined. The Act of Parliament, however wise, holds out an immense temptation to getting up these cases of fire. The reward to chimney-sweepers, &c. makes the oath of sparks, seen out of a chimney, a most profitable job. "Mr. Griffiths: I have already decided the case, Sir, and will hear no more. "Mr. Williams: That is my complaint; you have decided the case without hearing it. You have stopped me in the points I wished to put. You refuse my evidence. It is not for me to dispute a magistrate's decision on hearing a case; but I insist, Sir, you do not decide without hearing it. "Mr. Griffiths: You may indict the boy for perjury. "Mr. Williams: It is not, Sir, for a magistrate to amerce the public by an intemperate or incautious decision, and then refer people to such an expensive and troublesome remedy. Your scrutiny and sagacity as a magistrate will, I hope, as they ought, prevent the necessity of any such indictment. "Mr. Griffiths: Well, Sir, then bring forward your witnesses. "Three persons, named Neale, Preston, and Mills, deposed on oath, that they lived in the street, and watched the chimney on the first cry of fire,' prior to the point at which the boy said he saw the flame, and that there was not even a spark, or a greater smoke than they had often seen before. "Mr. Williams: I was present all the time in the kitchen and on the roof, and can positively swear there was no fire. Many more neighbours can depose to the same. 66 66 Mr. Griffiths: You can't prove a negative. Mr. Williams: Four persons are watching the same object; one, under the influence of a high reward, deposes to seeing what the other three, being impartial, depose not to have seen, their opportunities of seeing being equal. The conflict of testimony is the point for the magistrate to decide. "Mr. Griffiths: Not one of your witnesses says anything more than 1 could say sitting on this bench. "Mr. Williams (with warmth): That, Sir, I assert, in the strongest terms I can use, to be a gross error; an error too, on the only point on which the case turns. The witnesses swear that they were in a position from which they must have seen the fire had it existed. Could you have seen it from that bench? "Mr. Griffiths (with warmth): I won't, Sir, be cross-examined in this manner. "Mr. Williams: By your decision, any man unaided by cross-examination, and fearless of contradictory evidence, has only to swear to a flame or sparks coming out of a chimney, and the householder must pay about five pounds penalty. The inhabitants of London will be much obliged to you for such a proceeding. I shall appeal against the decision. Mr. Griffiths: You may, but I do not advise you. "Mr. Williams: Few persons advise appeals by which their judgments are to be exposed. DECEMBER, 1828. 2 Y "Mr. Griffiths (mildly): There will be an execution in your house if you don't pay it. "Mr. Williams: Which ought to have made the magistrate more cautious in his decision. The act fixes a maximum, and the magistrate may award a less sum. "Mr. Griffiths: Our rule is, to make gentlemen pay the maximum, and those not gentlemen to pay less. 66 Mr. Williams: It is not for me to decry the monstrous absurdity of this rule. The meaning of the act and the public interest do not turn upon gentlemen or not gentlemen. This rule is a lure to make gentlemen the victims of these fire impositions, so common in London. Promptitude of assistance is the object of the law, and, in this instance, the first engine, (a hand-engine) did not arrive until some time after the pretended fire was acknowledged to be out. "Mr. Griffiths: You must pay the fine or suffer the execution." We must say a word or two upon this matter. We will admit very readily that the firemen should be protected in receiving their reward for speedy arrival in cases of alarm. It is far better that they should be too much, instead of too little, on the alert. But we will take this as an abstract case, for it is of the manner in which the magistrate conducted it that we wish to speak. If the subject of investigation had been any thing else, our observations would equally apply. This gentleman has somewhere heard the phrase "You cannot prove a negative"-which, as regards general and abstract propositions, is true enough :-we suppose it is scarcely necessary for us to remind our readers that to prove that such or such a thing did not occur at such a time, at such a place, is quite as easy as to prove that it did. And this was all that Mr. Williams wanted to do. But no!—Mr. Griffiths has heard "You can't prove a negative" laid down apothegmatically-and he not only carries this to the jocose excess which our readers have seen, but we really believe that the expression has so strongly got a hold of his mind, that he takes it not merely as a saying, but as a rule; for instance, as the lawyers say, that “a tenant cannot deny the title of his landlord "—thereby meaning that he shall not be allowed to impeach the title under which he holds,—so, we think, that Mr. Griffiths not only believes proving a negative to be an impossibility, but that there is a rule of law that that impossibility shall not be attempted. Mr. Griffiths seems to have had the ancient desire of Judge Gripus of hearing only one side of the case- -the matter seems so much more clear before any answer is made; here, a young gentleman who describes himself as getting his living "any how he can," swears he saw fire coming out of the chimney. Mr. Williams wishes to say a word or two in contradiction of this, and to call witnesses in support of his contradiction. But no; the case is closed! -Closed, quotha! when only one side has been heard!-Aye, but a fact has been sworn to, and "you can't prove a negative." True, that did not strike us. It so chanced that, in this case, instead of a poor, quiet person, who would yield at once to any thing his worship chose to decide, the defendant was, as would seem from the report, an active, sturdy, and intelligent man, who certainly carried his respect for the magistrate to no very extraordinary pitch. He accordingly contrived to get his witnesses heard-respectable neighbours--who prove the negative three times over, that is once a-piece. Well, Mr. Williams thinks, of course, that he has triumphantly carried through his defence, and that the complaint will be dismissed. But no-Mr. Griffiths is not to be driven from the axiom he had laid down.-He will still insist upon it that "You cannot prove a negative "—therefore he decides that fire did come out of the chimney, and that the firemen's fee must be paid. It may appear waste of good time, the reader's and our own, to talk about such a trivial affair as this. But, though the circumstances themselves may be of no great importance, we think the fact that such proceedings as these could take place at one of our police-offices is of very great moment indeed. The police-offices of London have a very extensive power-and on the mode in which justice is administered at them, the comforts, and often the interests of a vast body of its inhabitants depend. It is this conviction which has led us to attend to the proceedings of these tribunals more often, and more at length, than perhaps some of our readers have quite understood. The present case will explain to them our motives; for they will remember that the above is an account of what is reported to have taken place yesterday, in the capital of the British dominions, and before a magistrate armed with powers which it would take an octavo volume to detail. SONNET. WRITTEN IN A THEATRE. OH for the quiet of the woods and hills, Or by the gusty wind, that sadly shrills Thorough their woods-or by the rippling rills (Though we of earth may hear) sings his high hymn; Prisons dumb wonder in some sylvan spot, Rather than smiling haunts, where inward joy is not! |