The Sun.
London, England, 1865-06-28 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, -WEDNESDAY EVENING, JUNE 28, 1865.

intended to do. The committee added—" In this instance,
however, your committee consider that no improper motives
are to be imputed to the Lord Chancellor." (Ironical cheers.)
He would be sorry to have deprived the Lord Chancellor
of the benefit of that opinion. But there was a committee
beyond the committee of that house. There was an appeal
,to the public ; and he believed the public would not endorse
that opinion of the committee. Let them couple that case
with another precisely similar, in which the Lord Chan-
cellor condoned the criminal and got the place. Was there
not in that case alsoa wilful connivance—a wilful shutting
of his eyes to offences to which he ought to be awake ?
Was there not evidence in this and the other transaction
to show how wholly unfit he was, probably either from the
guilelessness of his nature, of which he had never heard
before (a laugh), or from the audacity and insolence of office,
which was characteristic of the man, for the high position
he occupied ? Was there not evidence to show that he was
answerable for the misappropriation of the public funds to
the endowment of a criminal whom he had sentenced to
dismissal ? The very day the Lord Chancellor signed the
order for the pension the office was filled up, and it was
curious to observe that it was filled up at the suggestion of
Mr. Miller, the friend of Mr. Bothell, and who was always
put in motion whenever it was necessary to extricate Mr.
Bethell from his embarrassments. That very day the office
was filled up by the appointment of Mr. Welch, who had
lent £5OO to the Lord Chancellor's son. The committee
thought that no imputation rested upon the Lord Chancel-
lor in this matter. But what, he asked, would the public
think ? Mr. Welch having got the appointment, Mr.
Bethell's credit at once rose, and he returned to this coun-
try, where he became as importunate as ever. On Sept. 10,
1864, he obtained £2OO, in addition to the £3OO already
obtained from Mr. Welch, without any security, although
he had become hopelessly insolvent. On Feb. 7, 1865, he
obtained £5O more, and on the 20th of the same mouth a
further sum of £5OO. With reference to these money
transactions the committee stated that the evidence of Mr.
Harding was irreconcilable with that of Mr. Welch and Mr.
Bothell, but it was unfortunately too reconcilable with the
facts. They had before them evidence of the motives for
the loan, of the promise of the loan, and of the agreement
for the loan ; and it was too much to say that because the
evidence of the parties implicated was at variance, there-
fore they were to ignore the existence of the facts, and not
pass judgment on them. The committee stated " that they
consider it their duty to observe that the indisputable facts
are such as to render it essential to the public interest that
the case should as soon as possible be made the subject
of legal investigation." In that remark he quite con-
curred. First, they had the Lord Chancellor inculpated for
haste and oversight, and for having permitted a gross tran-
saction to be glossed over; next for granting a pension to
an officer who, if the circumstances stated were true, was
wholly undeserving of it, and who could not have obtained
it but for the connivance of the Lord Chancellor. They had
next Harding, Welch, and Bothell implicated in what ap-
peared to be a corrupt bargain for the sale of offices. But
what took place afterwards? Immediately after the loan of
£5OO this year, only two days after the committee reported
that the Lord Chancellor, at the instigation of Mr. Bethell,
Mrs. Bethell, and Mr. Skirrow, promised that in the event
of a vacancy in the country occurring, it should be bestowed
on Mr. Bethell. Mr. Bethell knew where to look. He fled
to Leeds, and saw Mr. Welch in his office on the 24th, and
though it was explicitly denied in that house that he had
gone to Leeds, it was generally understood in the Bank-
ruptcy Court of Leeds that Mr. Bethell was to succeed Mr.
Welch, and that the latter was to be transferred to a more
lucrative position in London. Mr. Miller, the intimate
friend of all parties, prepared the two appointments for
carrying out the corrupt agreement, which the Chancellor
wilfully abstained from knowing, because he must have
known that persons about him were trafficking in his name.
The Chancellor wilfully ignored the fact. It was not con-
venient to ask questions; but he knew he was nominating
a person at the instigation of a worthless son. In fact, it
was a transaction discreditable to all parties connected with
it. (Hear.) On the 24th February, 1865, the appointments
were filled up; but on the 26th the Lord Chancellor stated
that, in consequence of information he had received of the
conduct of his son in Paris, he was determined not to ap-
point him to any office. He (Mr. Longfield) believed that
the real motive for not completing the appointments was
the Edmunds' job having been completed, and on the
27th having become the common topic in the clubs and
newspapers, and three days later the subject of ques-
tions in that house. The information which the Lord
Chancellor had received was simply the universal outcry
at the job which had been perpetrated in another place
similar to this, by which the keeper of the Queen's con-
science, first ignoring an offence, and then condoning and
conniving at it, obtained a pension for a worthless person,
which, to the eternal disgrace of the Lord Chancellor, had
been granted, but which, to the honour of the House of
Lords, had since been rescinded ; and which would have
been dishonest to the country if it had been permitted to
stand. (Hear, hear.) That was the true reason why the ap-
pointment was not carried out, and Mr. Miller's zeal on
that occasion was not successful. Such were the transac-
tions in which this unfortunate family—(laughter)—were
engaged—and engaged beyond all hope of wiping away the
stain which was thus cast upon the administration of jus-
tice. The highest officer of the Crown had been twice con-
victed, and up to this time twice pardoned, for having
sanctioned and connived at a crime for his own family pur-
poses in order that things might bo done pleasantly and
secretly. He might say—and the whole country would
echo the sentiment—that it was a wonderful thing that a
person filling the high office of Lord Chancellor—the
highest office under the Crown—should under these cir-
cumstances be still Lord Chancellor—(hear, hear)—when,
at the indignant call of the country, the pension granted
by reason of his misconducthad been rescinded. Was there
no pride among men ? was there no attempt to make his
conduct pure 'n the eyes of the country ? Was he insen-
sible to shame ? was he really destitute of the glimmerings
of those principles which actuated other men ? If he had
not a virtue, might he not affect one ? (A laugh.) Might
he not tender his resignation, and thus offer some repara-
tion to the country for the outrage which his neglect had
allowed to be committed upon the administration of jus-
tice ? The questions he was about to ask were connected
with the concluding observations of the report. The com-
mittee stated, "The general impression created by the re-
tirement of Mr. Wilde, and the pecuniary transactions
which took place between Mr. Bethell and Mr. Welch,
coupled with the representations made by Mr. Bethell on
his visit to Leeds, were calculated to excite the gravest
suspicions ; and your committee are of opinion that the
inquiry which they have conducted was, for this reason,
highly desirable for the public interest." In that obser-
vation he quite concurred, and he wished to ask the fol-
lowing questions :—" Had the pension bestowed on Mr.
Wilde been recalled ?" " Had Mr. Welch been dismissed
from his office ?" "Had Mr. Miller been dismissed from his
office ?" (Hear, hear.) "Had the Lord Chancellor been
kindly asked to retire upon a pension—(laughter)—in jus-
tice to those officers who were guilty of no greater miscon-
duct, but who were not equally protected by the arm of the
law ?" In conclusion he begged to move the adjournment
of the house. (Opposition cheers.)
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said—The hon. and
learned gentleman has imposed upon me a task of no ordi-
nary difficulty. (Ironical cheers.) But the difficulty which
I feel is much more owing to my own determination not to
permit the feelings which I entertain to get the mastery
over me than to any embarrassment in dealing with the
speech of the hon. and learned gentleman, or with the ques-
tions which he has put. I thought that in this assembly
—perhaps of all others in the world—even the meanest man
may expect justice. (Cheers.) I should have thought that
the same measure of justice would not have been consi-
dered unfit to be extended to one filling the highest and
most dignified position in the service of the Crown. (Hear,
hear.) But it seems that there are gentlemen sitting oppo-
site whose ideas of justice are far different to mine. (Op-
position cheers.) I thought that, in order to judge and
condemn, we should be in possession of the evidence on
which our judgment is to be founded. The report of the
committee on this question was presented to the house on
Saturday last, and no time has been lost in preparing to
print and distribute the evidence on which it was founded.
On Thursday next, or, at latest, on Friday, that evidence
would be printed and in the hands of hon. members, and
then they will able to form their own opinions upon this
subject. Then those who are disposed to attack will have
the legitimate materials for doing so ; and then those who
have to meet that attack will also be in possession of the
materials by which that is to be done. But I never before
heard that, whether a man was great or small, in high degree
or low degree, it was &course worthy of this house, or of any
member having the honour of a seat in it, that a deliberate
arraignment and attack should be made upon a report, itself
based upon evidence, without waiting until that evidence
was in the hands of members. (Hear, hear.) But if anything
could aggravate the wrong that was done in so dealing
with the question, it was to find that the hon member
who so brings it forward does not adopt the decision of the
report to which he refers. (Hear, hear.) Whereas I find
in that report it is the deliberate judgment of the committee,
upon the evidence before them, that the facts they believe
to be established by the evidence acquitted the Lord Chan-
cellor of everything except haste and want of caution.
(Ironical cheers.) That may or may not be the conclusion
which the house will adopt whore it has the evidence
before it. But to ask the house not only not to wait for
the evidence, but to reverse the decision of the committee
before the evidence is printed, is a course which 1 believe
has been hitherto unprecedented, and which, I hope, will
never be sanctioned. But, to a certain extent, I am able
to say—and for which we need not wait for the evidence
—I am able to point out the wrong which has been done
by the remarks of the hon. and learned gentleman. The
hon. and learned gentleman has spoken as if the house had
grounds for believing that there was not any abuses in the
Court of Bankruptcy to be inquired into.
Mr. LONGFIELD—I did not say so. I said that there
were so many of them, on account of the Lord Chancellor's
supineness.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL—Then all I can say is,
that it would have been—l think it would, at least—candid
to believe that the head of that court, bound to discharge
the great function of superintending the administration
of that court might at least have instituted the inquiries
which he did institute into tho manner in which the sub-
ordinate officers of that court discharged their duties, from
some other motive than that of obtaining an appointment

for his own advantage. Unless the house departed from
the judgment of the committee so much as to presume
and believe that the Lord Chancellor had cognisance of
the corrupt means which are said to have been used by
individual after individual, with the Lord Chancellor's
sanction, to procure an appointment under the Court of
Bankruptcy, then I venture to say, upon the facts known
to all, that it appears that in these matters the Lord
Chancellor could not possibly have been actuated by
any improper motives. (Hear.) What are the facts of
the case ? They are these. He instituted the inqui-
ries which commenced on April 6, 1864, when the son of
the Lord Chancellor who has been named was already in
possession of an office more valuable than that at Leeds,
and could have no possible reason for desiring to have
anything to do with such an office. It was after these in-
quiries were instituted that the Lord Chancellor called on
his son to resign his office, on account of finding that he
was then in pecuniarfembarrassment. From that day to
this the Lord Chancellor has never been reconciled to that
son, and, so far from having since that time been accessible
to the influence of that son, exercised in any matter of
appointment, he has not even seen him or had any per-
sonal communication with him—(cheers)—not even by
letter, except upon the occasion of a family event to which
I need not refer, and when a letter was written upon the
subject of these very inquiries. Whatever may be the culp-
ability of that person, it is the deep misfortune of the Lord
Chancellor, and not his fault, that a member of his family
should be so little worthy of him, and, I am pained to say
it, who has cast dishonour on his name. We might have
thought that a generous House of Commons would not
have regarded that event as ground for surmising and be-
lieving all sorts of evil things against the highest officer of
the realm. I shall be in a position when the evidence is
before the house to challenge any one to show that when
Mr. Bethell was by the Lord Chancellor himself compelled
to give up a more lucrative appointment in London at the
beginning of April there was the slightest possible ground
for believing that he exercised any influence in obtaining
any appointment whatever. Were these things done in
a corner ? Far from it. In the month of June the com-
mittee on the subject of the law of bankruptcy appointed
by this house was sitting, and the Lord Chancellor
communicated to that committee the whole proceedings
with respect to the investigations going on at Leeds in the
matter of Mr. Wilde. The papers down to that' date
were printed with the evidence taken before that commit-
tee, and laid upon the table before Mr. Wilde's resigna-
tion had taken place. Therefore it was totally impos-
sible to believe for one moment that in the conduct
of these proceedings the Lord Chancellor had, or could
have had, any motive or object whatever, except
that of discharging his duty towards the public.
With regard to the appointment of Mr. Welch, the Lord,
Chancellor never saw Mr. Welch in his life. (Ironical
cheers and laughter.) Does the hon. and learned gentle-
man mean to say that recommendations, coming from pro-
fessional and creditable sources, may not be such as to jus-
tify the appointment of an individual personally unknown
to the man who gives the appointment ? Mr. Welch had
been long before recommended to the Lord Chancellor for
a similar appointment by the late Sir Wm. Atherton, by
Mr. Edward James, the Attorney-General of the county
palatine of Lancaster, and by Mr. Manisty, Q. 0., on that
circuit, and other gentlemen of eminence. So he had good
reason to believe that whatever had been said in his favour
by Mr. Bethell had been—long before these disgraceful
pecuniary transactions which we read of 'with so much sor-
row—had been said before by competent persons in the
ordinary way. Unless the house is capable of believing,
against the judgment of the committee, that the Lord
Chancellor knew of this attempt to bribe, there was no pos-
sible motive of the Lord Chancellor of a corrupt character
in appOinting Mr. Welch. But it does not end there, for
there is another gentleman in the same situation as Mr.
Wilde, viz., Mr. Payne. The same proceedings were taken
against Mr. Payne, who resigned a little later, and the Lord
Chancellor made the appointment in favour of a perfect
stranger in the month of September. There never was a
more gratuitous, unjust, or unworthy abuse of these mate-
rials—(oh, oh)—than the accusation that the Lord Chan-
cellor could have been actuated by anything corrupt or im-
proper in the steps which led to Wilde's resignation, or in
the appointment of Welch in his stead. Really I heard with
pain from the hon. and learned gentleman the language of
the advocate at the bar—of the gentleman addressing the
jury—of the counsel at the Old Bailey. (Oh, oh, and
cheers.) Surely it would have been well for the hon. and
learned gentleman to have limited himself to what the com-
mittee did say in the absence of the evidence. What the
committee did say is now the candid statement of the Lord
Chancellor. (Laughter.) I should think there are very few
gentlemen here present who, if they suffered their feelings
to guide them in such a matter, instead of party spirit or per-
sonal animosity—(oh, oh)—would severely condemn a father
for this, and no more than this : that, intimate personal
friends, near relatives, ladies, and others coming and repre-
senting prospects of improvements in a son—for whom, of
course, after all, for a father may be permitted to have a
father's feelings—he did not say that he would or could
then accede to what at all former times he had refused to
do, but simply said that he would take what they had repro-
sented to him into consideration—for it never went further
than that, in the finding of the committee—and that after
considering three or four days he finally decided that it
should not be done. He candidly told the committee that
he had come to that conclusion from information of his
son's misconduct at Paris. What would have been more
easy, if the Lord Chancellor had been what hon. gentlemen
opposite seemed to think, than for him to say that he had
reflected on what would be his public duty, and that he had
crane to the conclusion that a person who had acted as his
son had done before, was not a person on whom dependence
could be placed, and therefore he had decided not to appoint
him ? But ho informed the committee that he was influenced
by circumstances which told to his own positive detriment
against the application in favour of his son. What is the
sum and substance of the charge against the Lord Chancel-
lor? It is that for a period of four days he suffered himself
to consider whether he could possibly justify a more mer-
ciful and lenient course to his son than he had previously
thought it his duty to take, and that he came to the con-
clusion that he could not, and at once peremptorily refused
to appoint his son. The committee have given their verdict
on these transactions, and find no grounds for imputing
to the Lord Chancellor anything but want of caution with
respect to the pension of Mr. Wilde. The hon. and learned
gentleman, not waiting for that evidence, desires the house
to infer in some way or other that the Lord Chancellor has
been guilty of corruption in this matter. With regard to the
pension to Mr. Wilde, the Lord Chancellor stated, as far as
I can recollect, that Mr. Wilde's offences were quite serious
enough to justify the notices which he did give ;
but at the same time it would have been a
harsh and severe course to dismiss him without
allowing him to retire on a pension. Therefore,
giving the pensions, though done in some haste, pro-
ceeded from no motives of an improper character. In the
questions which the hon. and learned member has put to
me there are other persons implicated in this matter, and I
will state what her Majesty's Government thought it their
report was
last the resolution
was in print they took
idtuitnytotocodnos.idAersatsioon,onaansdthoi on Saturday
s
was arrived at by the noble lord at the head of the Govern-
ment to lay the evidence as soon as it was printed before
the law officers of the Crown in order that they might, if
they the criminal proceed-
ings foundagainst
tsufficienthepersons
implicates
in the charge of corrup-
tion which the committee appear to think ought to be taken.
I believe the house will be of opinion that that is the pro-
per resolution of the house to adopt. The house will also
be of opinion that as such criminal proceedings are pend-
ing, it would not be desirable to go now into the grounds
maybe liable to be brought
other individuals Mr.
uagpoainn wathtichhostehaptecrarimonina.al cAhmarognegat
Welch is one of those who, if the committee have come to
a right conclusion, may be subject to a criminal prosecu-
tion. Should that be so, it would be unjust to Mr. Welch
to finally 'remove him from his office, and it has been
thought proper to suspend him from the discharge of his
office. With regard to Mr. Miller, Ido not understand the
committee to have done more than express disapprobation
of his mode of expressing himself, and of his officiousness
on several occasions. Ido not understand him to be im-
plicated in any charge of corruption, although, if I rightly
understand, the hon. and learned gentleman opposite seemed
to be of a different opinion. But whether there were such
grounds or not is another point which we shall be better
able to understand from the evidence. In justice to him I
think the evidence ought to be seen before we can deter-
mine wlit steps ought to be taken with regard to Mr. Mil-
len I have now, I believe, answered all that portion of
the hon. gentleman's questions to which I can be expected
to give an answer, and I think that the house will agree
with me in regretting that he should not have thought it
right to postpone discussion of this matter until a future
day.

kr. HARDY contended that, by allowing Mr. Wildo to
retire upon a pension after very serious charges had been
made against him, the Lord Chancellor had perverted the
course of justice and disgraced the high office he held.

Mr. E. EGERTON, asa member of the committee, urged
that in fairness the house should withhold its judgment
until the production of the evidence, which ought, how-
ever, to be circulated without a moment's unnecessary
delay.
The LORD ADVOCATE defended the conduct of the
Lord Chancellor, who, he said, hadsufferedfrom unfounded
imputations, and had acted throughout in an honourable
and upright manner.
Lord CRANBORNE said that the Government would
not be doing their duty unless they instituted a close ex-
amination of the whole of the facts, and ascertained how
far Mr. Millerhad been cognisant of all that Richard Bothell
was doing, and also inflicted some punishment upon Miller
for his rash misuse of his official trust. For there could be
no doubt that thO' Chancellor's patronage had been set up
for sale.

Observations were also made by Mr. Denman, Mr. Hen-
nessy, Mr. Ayrton, Mr. Scully, and Sir L. Palk
Lord PALMERSTON—Sir, I am sorry to prolong this
discussion, even by a few words, but I cannot let it close
without expressing tho pain—l may say indignation—with
which I listened to the speech made by the hon. member
for Mallow in introducing this subject. This house is com-
posed of opposite parties, and it is perfectly fair for mem-
bers of one party to take advantage of any fair ground of
conimenting upon the conduct of persons belonging to tho

opposite party, and especially of persons who happen to
hold office. But hitherto it has been the characteristic of
this house that, however great have been our animosities,
and however strongly party feeling may have divided one
side from the other, at allevents the persons accused have
had fair play. (Hear, hear.) Now the Lord Chancellor
has not had fair play from the hon. and learned member for
Mallow. (Hear, hear.) The hon. and learned member for
Mallow it appears was present during the whole of the in-
vestigation. (Hear, hear.) He knows, therefore, exactly
what the evidence given was ; and yet it was stated by
those who were also present that he has made assertion of
matters which will not be found in evidence when it is
produced. Well, it will be for the hon. and learned mem-
ber for Mallow to justify his conduct by making out the
correctness of his assertions .

Mr. LONGFIELD—I did not make a single assertion
that is not in the evidence.

Lord PALMERSTON—I was also, I must say, much
grieved to hear the bitterness of invective which the hon.
and learned member threw into his charges made against
the Lord Chancellor. He was perfectly justified in stating
that which was borne out by the evidence he heard, but he
was not justified in that bitter personal invective which has
not been inaptly stigmatised by the Attorney-General as
being more characteristic of the Old Bailey than of the or-
dinary practice of the profession to which he belongs. But
I complain of the manner in which the hon. and learned
gentleman has brought the subject under discussion
(Hear.) If he had intended to make an attack upon the Lord
Chancellor, founded on evidence not in the hands of mem-
bers, but of which he had cognisance, at all events he
should have given notice of his intention. (Hear.) But
the notice he gave was of a question to be asked ; and so
little did that notice indicate an intention of going into a
personal and virulent attack on the Lord Chancellor that I
myself was going to answer the question instead of the
Attorney-General, believing that the real question he in-
tended to put was simply as to the course the Government
intended to take upon the evidence when it was produced.
I was going to tell him that it was the intention of the
Government to remit the matter to the law officers of the
Crown, in order that such legal steps might be taken as
might be justified by the state of the case. (Hear, hear.)
And so much did the question put upon the paper imply
that it was directed against other persons, and not against
the Lord Chancellor, that it asked whether steps were to
be taken against the persona implicated. I can-only say
that I regret, for the character of the House of Commons,
that the hon. and learned member has taken a course
so entirely opposite to that usually taken even by the most
violent party members. I trust—l am convinced—that
when this evidence is in the hands of members they will
come to a very different conclusion to that which the
honourable and learned member has drawn; and that
they will see so far from that evidence being made
the foundation of charges such as those which the
hon. and learned member has made against the Lord
Chancellor, that it bears out the report of the committee,
and acquits the Lord Chancellor of being actuated by any
incorrect motives throughout the course of these transac-
tions. (Hear, hear.)
The motion for the adjournment was then negatived
without a division, and the subject dropped.

THE APPROACHING PROROGATION OF
PARLIAMENT.

Mr. C. FORSTER asked the noble lord at the head of
the Government, with reference to the present state of
public business, when it was probable the session might be
brought to an end ?
Lord PALMERSTON—In answer to the question of
my hon. friend I may say that, as far as the public busi-
ness of the two houses is concerned, there is nothing to
keep Parliament sitting longer than Thursday in next
week, and that that event which we are all looking forward
to may take place on that day, the 6th. I know there are
opinions that the discussion on certain railway bills before
the House of Lords would be concluded some few days
later than the 6th, and a wish has been expressed that Par-
liament should be kept sitting for the purpose of settling
the squabbles of these railway companies. But we all know
the great public inconvenience which arises from unneces-
sary delay in a matter in which the whole United King-
dom is interested, and the great expense that is caused
thereby. (Hear, hear.) And, therefore, I think the house
will be of opinion that the Government is right in prefer-
Hag the public advantage to the interests of those parti-
cular railway companies—(cheers)—the more especially as
it is entirely in the power of those who are concerned in
these disputes to meet the next Parliament under the same
conditions in which- they are found by the dissolution,
which will take place on Thursday. (Hear, hear.)