The Press. — London, England, 1854-02-11 00:00:00

FEBRUARY 11, 1654, her s uccessors all treason! . and traitorous conspiracies which may be formed against her and them ; and I do faithfully promise to maintain, support, and defend to the utmost of my power the succession to the crown, which succession is established by an act intituled 'An Act for the further regulation of the crown, and the better security of the rights and privileges of the subject,' as it stands limited to the heirs of the ncesSohia; and Ido hereby abjure allegiance to any other s person p claiming a right to the crown ; and 1 do declare that no foreign prince or potentate hath or ought to have any temporal or c ivil jurisdiction, directly or indirectly, in this kingdom. So help me God." The noble lord then challenged attention to two points. First, whether this oath should be adminis tered to Roman Catholic members in lieu of the one enacted by the Relief Bill; and secondly, as to the omission of the words, "on the true faith of' a Christian." Upon the first head he urged an affir mative conclusion. The Roman Catholic oath was perpared as a safeguard against dangers which were altogether illusory, and was accepted by the Roman Catholics themselves in the light of a supererogatory form, binding them merely to what they would have performed without it. He urged also that the intro duction of religious opinions into a parliamentary oath was absolutely injurious—entangling the con sciences of some, while it availed nothing to secure I the faith of others. The words "on the true faith of a Christian" he had omitted in his suggested form. They were originally introduced to guard against Jesuits, but, by a casual operation, as Lord Lyndhurst had remarked, deprived other persons of their rights. At present their sole effect was to pre vent Jews from sitting in Parliament. If the Legis lature really desired such a prohibition, let them formally insist upon the introduction of the sentence, and thus express their intention in an unmistakable manner. But if they sought to arrive at the same result in a less direct manner, by rejecting his pro posal and retaining the parliamentary oaths as they now stood, then, he contended, another grave ques tion would be opened—namely, whether the House of Commons did not possess as much power over the oaths of its members as a judge on the bench had over the forma to be prescribed to the witnesses in hii court. The resolution having been moved, Sir F. THEM GER postponed offering any opposition at that early stage, wishing the house to have the bill fairly before them, with time to consider it. He indicated, how ever, some of the principles whereon, when the fitting time came, he should feel it his duty to offer stre nuous resistance to the proposal of the noble lord. He admitted that some portions of the oath of su premacy could be dispensed with, but believed that the times were not such as warranted the oblitera tion of the whole. Therefore he objected to any oath which could be taken alike by Protestants and Roman Catholics, because from such a form the acknowledgment of the Queen's supremacy, which was one of the keystones of the Protestant religion, must necessarily be effaced. Sir F. Thesiger then noticed the omission of the words which prevented the entrance of Jews into Parliament, believing that, although mentioned last and introduced with some show of indifference, the change to he thus effected was the real motive for the whole proposition. Re specting the form of oath suggested for their adoption, he characterised it as containing an attack—he would not say an insidious attack—on the Established Church, because it omitted the recognition of the spiritual and ecclesiastical authority of the Queen, which was intimately connected with, and was the keystone of', the Established Church. It would re move one of the securities of the Protestant religion, and would endanger even the Christianity of the nation, by depriving that house of its Christen cha racter. The resolution was then carried; the house re solved itself into committee ; leave was given ; and the bill brought in. Monday, the 27th inst., was fixed for the second reading. THE IRISH MEMBERS AND MINISTERIAL CORRUPTION. Articles in the Freeman's Journal and Times re peating a charge of "trafficking in places" against the Irish members were on Tuesday brought under the notice of the House of Commons by Mr. I. BUTT. The allegations were first promulgated at a public dinner in Tuam by Dr. Gray (editor of the Journal) and a Mr. Kelly. The substantial accusations were these—that a certain person had bargained with an Irish representative to pay MK for an appointment as paid guardian of a union under the poor law; and that another person unnamed had agreed to buy the office of stipendiary magistrate for 1,0001. front another member belonging to the sister island. By way of additional dishonesty it was stated that in one case the bargain was struck only five months . before the paid guardianships were abolished ; and in the other that, while the candidate for the magis tracy paid down 5001. upon the promise of an appoint ment, he repudiated the unholy contract, and refused to disburse the remaining moiety when the promise was fulfilled. Upon these statements the papers named, and especially the Times, had commented in THE PRESS. a manner which extended the charge of corruption 'over the whole body of Irish members. This Mr. Butt denounced as an injustice. Even if the facts alleged were true, it was scandalous to attribute guilt to all on account of the offences of one or two. The honour not only of the representatives for Ireland was, however, involved, and the charge could not be passed over in silence. Citing precedents for the course he was adopting, the hon. member then indi cated his intention of treating the article in question as a breach of privilege, but not with any purpose of instituting proceedings against the publisher of the Times. The time for such things was passed away, nor was the honour of the hou , eto be cleared thus. But he should propose the appointment of a commit tee of inquiry, by whom the charge could be probed to the bottom. Whether well or ill founded, it was necessary that the allegations should be investigated, the truth discovered, and the guilty punished. He moved first that the articles should be read by the clerk at the table. This motion was Feconded by Mr. J. O'CONNELL and carried. When the articles had been read, Mr. BUTT moved the appointment of the commit tee of inquiry. Mr. J. O'CoNNELL seconded this motion also, con curring in the wish for inquiry, but fully convinced that the charges would turn out to be miserable calumnies. _ Lord J. RUSSELL also admitted the propriety of an investigation, and pointed out a ready means of certeining the truih : " It is due to the honour of Parliament, to the character of the Overnment, and to the character of those Irish members who have been included in that sweeping de- nunciation to which the hon. and learned gentleman has called our attention. We have the names of Dr. Gray and Mr. Kelly as the persons who have made these charges. We have, therefore, the means of investigation, and I trust that investigation will be pursued to the utmost ex tent—( cheers)—in order to ascertain whether there is any truth whatever in these statements. if such offers were made, I trust the committee will ascertain from whom they proceeded and to whom they were addressed; and, in short, that they will inquire into all the particulars and details connected with the transactions.—( Hear, hear.)" Mr. J. BAIL denied, from personal knowledge, that corruption had crept into the appointments of paid guardians in Ireland. Mr. LUCAS had been present at the Tuam dinner, had heard the charges made by Dr. Gray and Mr. Kelly, and felt bound to state his firm conviction that they were true. He believed also that they were only part of the truth. He had himself brought forward similar accusations "in a general way," and was sure that it was " utterly impossible for any one to take part in the political conversation that goes on with reference to the management of affairs in Ire land without hearing very frequently cases of this kind mentioned upon evidence which it is impossible for any man to disbelieve." Some cases of the kind were then stated by the bon. member with acknow ledged reserve, because he was at present unable to mention the names of his informants; his narrative , being frequently interrupted by murmurs from the Ministerial benches. On the whole case he pro nounced his opinion that a regular " commerce of corruption" had been carried on between the Irish members and successive Whig Governments; that such was the very rationale of the system by which the Whigs kept themselves in power. In support of this assertion he related an anecdote of the late Mr. Sheil : "I have heard mentioned dozens of these cases, but I heard one fact mentioned which is worth a great many isolated cases, because it refers to a system of government. It refers to something which fell from the lips of the late Mr. Shell, in the interval between the Durham letter— which I dare say the noble lord the member for London recollects—(a laugh)—and the meeting of that Parliament to which the Ecclesiastical Titles Bill was to be proposed. During that interval some of Mr. Shell's friends were very anxious, I am told, to know his opinion as to how the government of the country was to be managed in future if the Whigs quarrelled with the Irish members; and Mr. Shell answered, as it was reported to me (and the authority on which I have it is so good that I have no hesitation in saving I believe it)—Mr. Shell's answer was, ' Lord J. Russell has calculated everything minutely. (men tioning same one connected with the Treasury—l am not sure about the name, and therefore I will not mention it) holds the Irish members in the hollow of his hand.' (` Hear, hear,' and laughter.) The gentleman to whom Mr. Sheil gave that information was rather curious to know what this figurative language of one gentleman hold ing so many other gentlemen in the hollow of his hand e , ,tdd possibly mean, and the explanation given to him, I am told, was this :—That before any great debate was to come on—when the division, as the writer in the Times, or as Mr. Kelly says, the. Government is hard pressed—on the eve of such a division gentlemen received a circular stating that such and such a place ras vacant, and that it awaited their recommendation to have it filled up ; that the recommendation was not filled up till after the division —that is, as I understand it, until after the member had given the vote in favour of the Government, or (if he happened to represent a very unmanageable constituency) until after he had stayed away. Mr. Sheil added—and of this it is possible the Government is not cognisant—that a certain number of Irish members were in the habit, 125 when they got these recommendations, of taking them forthwith to a broker, and of selling them in the very way which we have heard described in the speeches of Dr. Gray and Mr. Kelly, which form the basis of the pre sent motion." Mr. T. DuxeomaF. contended that it was not the Irish section of the house only whose honour had been impeached, and read from the reports of a recent trial a statement made by Mr. Hudson to the effect that certain money or shares had been appro priated to the purpose of obtaining the good offices of "certain persons of influence connected with the landed interest and Parliament." The motion was unanimously agreed to. On Wednesday Mr. liensow claimed the indul gence of the house while he adverted to the state ment made on the previous evening by the hon. member for Finsbury. Mr. Duncombe bad been neglectful of the usual courtesy which members practise towards each other when anything personal is intended to be said. Had he received notice no inconvenience would have prevented him from being present. Mr. Duncombe's charge against him of having tampered with the honour of members of Parliament was founded upon the statements of the Times newspaper. His accuser, however, had en tirely overlooked the letter of his (Mr. Hudson's) solicitor, inserted in the same journal, entirely re pudiating the construction which the journalist had put upon the transaction as it appeared in the law proceedings. Mr. Hudson asserted upon his honour that he had never made, never meant to make, and had no grounds whatever for making, a charge of corruption against any members of Parliament. Re was morally right, although he had been found to be legally wrong, and consequently compelled to refund money which he had never received. Con scious in his own rectitude, be would wait with confidence the decision of time, when the public improvements he had been instrumental in devising or aiding would be calmly considered in connection with the means by which they were accomplished. He feared no scrutiny ; the more searching it was the better would it be for him. LEADERSHIP OF THE HOUSE OF COMMONS. A committee was moved for on Thursday by Mr. CAvi.Eit, "to consider the duties of the member lead ing the Government in the House of Commons, and the expediency of attaching office and salary thereto." The hon. member supported his motion on the plea of justice to the individual who now performed laborious services, whose nature and extent he sketched, without receiving any remuneration. The position occupied by the noble member for London was altogether anomalous, and he wished for a com mittee, in order to have that anomaly put in train for rectification. Mr. STIRUNG seconded the motion. Sir C. Woon found practical difficulties and objec tions in the way of attaching salary to an office so in • definite and undefinable as that of the so-called leader of the Commons. He objected also to a proposal which tended to establish a general rule upon an exceptional case. The duties of lerdership were al together distinct from those of the public service, and, though often performed by the holders of high office, were in themselves of a most vague and volunteer character. Mr. WlLLums remarked that the present were not days for creating new offices and adding to the public burdens. Mr. WALPOLE agreed with Sir C. Wood in thinking that the office of leader of that house was one wholly unknown to the constitution, and further thought that the precedent which had been established by the noble lord was one that was likely to give rise to much inconvenience. They were apt to talk of ministerial responsibility, but the real responsibility of a minister was connected with the specific duties of the office he held. The house ought to be cautious in dealing with this precedent, or it would be liable to be acted upon in future years : " In the other Bosse of Parliament they had certain instances where members of the Government had been only members of the Cabinet having no particular office attached to them, but in the House of Commons there was only one instance where a member of the Cabinet had held a seat in the Government without filling any of the recog nised offices of State. Such was now the position of the noble lord, who, ever since he had resigned the office of Foreign Minister, had remained the organ of the Govern ment without holding an office of responsibility beyond that of Privy Councillor. Now, he had pointed out the inconvenience that might arise in that position with refer ence to the grave question of ministerial responsibility ; but to his mind a still greater difficulty would hereafter arise if the precedent now set of permitting a member of the house to be the organ of the Government without holding office should be generally followed. The incon venience which might arise would be of a twofold character. First of all, the Crown might select for its principal ad viser a member of the house who could take the position of the noble lord without going back to be re-elected by his constituents. (Hear.) The other inconvenience was one which would be felt by the country generally. If this precedent were to be followed it would deprive the country of the means of knowing who were the real advisers of