The Press.
London, England, 1854-08-12 00:00:00

746

' burdens of the nation, previously in course of
" yearly reduction, are now raised to a height
" which must seriously affect the welfare of
" all classes of the community?"
• THE CHANCELLOR oir THE EXCHEQUEtt
AND MR. O'FLAHERTY.
IT would be premature, perhaps; to discuss
the O'Flaherty case itt present : we should do
so under much disadvalitage; for the fadts are
not fully before the public. Mr. O'FLAHERTY,
it is said, has been guilty of fraud and forgery.
Ike was an income-tax commissioner, recoin-
mended for the post by the Chief Secretary
foi- Ireland, and appointed by the Cd-Al-icELLett
of the EXCHEQUER. Mr. GLADSTONE states that
as a public officer his conduct was unim-
peachable; that, being no longer a public
officer, the public have nothing to say to his
delinquencies; and that he (Mr. GLADSTONE)
has no further responsibility connected with
him. This, after all, is rather loose Morality.
It comes, however, consistently from the
moralist who saw no serious error in Mr.
LAwLEit's conduct. But the public have a
right to, some further information on this
subject, which at present they are not likely
to obtain.
Mr. O'FLAHERTY, we suspect, had reason to
consider his appointment in Ireland perma
cent. He set up, we have heard, an expen-
sive and permanent establishment at Kings-
town, and acted and talked as if he, at
least, had no reason to consider his office
temporary. Yet the Irish department was
broken up suddenly, Mr. GoDLEY being re-
moved to England, and the appointment of
Mr. O'FLAHERTY being cancelled. This looks
'auspicious. We have a right to know whether
.or not the breaking up of thalrish department,
the removal of Mr. GODLEY to this country, and
the cancelling of Mr. O'FLAHERTY'S appointment
were or were not, directly or indirectly, con•
nected with the delinquencies which have since
come to light. If they were, Mr. GLADSTONE
has been guilty of a mistatement and decep-
on, and has attempted to evade a responsibi
city which properly belongs to him. But let
us consider further. Mr. O'FLAHERTY was
.the personal friend of the Duke of NEWCASTLE.
We have heard some amusing proofs of the
intimacy of the acquaintance. More than this.
Mr. O'FLAHERTY had confidentially consulted
and advised with the Duke of NEWCASTLE on
.the important subject of the Irish elections.
We trace him, by the Duke's own admission,
in close connection with him, not only merely
as regards the Dungarvan election, but as re-
gards Irish elections generally. He had stood
a contest for the present Ministry. The Duke
had used all his influence with Mr. HOPE to
prevent a division which might operate to the
prejudice of Mr. O'FLAHERTY. Mr. O'FLA
usaTT, therefore, was no common personage.
Is it likely, we ask our readers, that he would
have been so unceremoniously kicked out by
the CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER? Why, he
was almost as intimately and confidentially As-
sociated with the Duke of NEWCASTLE as the
Honourable Mr. LAWLEY was with Mr. GLAD
STONE, and the Duke of NEWCASTLE was just
about to appoint Mr. LAWLEY to represent her
Majesty in Australia. There would have
been an ingratitude, a want of reciprocity in
this treatment of the Duke's friend, which we
confess, whatever may be Mr. GLADSTONE'S
fault s, we cannot impute to him.
But Mr. O'FLAHERTY had another claim
on Ministers which must have secured for
him better treatment. There were people
Who, in the Keogh controversy last year,
Were ill-judging enough to give the prepon-
derance to the assertion of Lord NAAB as
against that of Mr. KEOGH, respecting the
alleged offer of office to that gentleman under
'Lord DERRY'S Government ; but Mr. O'FLA-
EtEnt threw his character into the scale
against Lord NAAs, and Mr. O'FLAHERTY was a
man of veracity and honour. We ask our
aders, under all the circumstances, is there
my one who really believes that there was no
°
connection the delinquencies
and the cancelling of his appoint-

-