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

S tTik, LONDON, WEDNES E VENUS G, JUNE 28, 180.

two members of his own family. One of these investiga-
tions took place in the House of Lords, and was connected
with a gentleman named Edmunds, and that inquiry had a
considerable bearing upon the question which was recently
concluded in the House of Commons. The former investi-
gation had scarcely terminated when anot:wr unfortunate
. .

event was adverted to in this house—the circumstances
under which a gentleman of tho name of Wilde had been
forced to resign an appointment at Leeds. The Lord Chan-
cellor's son had been promised that appointment, which,
however, was not subsequently made. The matter formed
a subject of discussion in this house, and resulted in a
committee being appointed to inquire into the whole

transaction. It was said that the Lord Chancellor courted

the fullest, freest, and most open inquiry, and the com-
mittee of selection named five gentlemen, certainly of the
highest character and respectability, to inquire into the
circumstances, which cast as deep as possible a slur upon
the administration of justice, and upon judicial appoint-
ments. That committee followed the most objectionable
precedent which was set in another place, and fell into the
very grave mistake of conducting the most solemn inquiry,
which the Lord Chancellor said he wished to be full, free,
and open, with closed doors. They concluded their labours
rather more than a week ago, and their report had been
submitted to members. It now became his duty, and a

painful duty he felt it to be, to bring before the house all
the circumstances detailed in that report, and to ask the
Attorney-General what proceedings her Majesty's Govern-
ment would take in the matter, or whether they would
think it unnecessary to take any further proceedings. The

rson chiefly involved in this transaction was the head of

the profession to which lie (Mr. Longfield) was proud to
belong some little time ago ; but if two or three more
transactions such as this should take place, he did not know
with what shame the members of the profession might hang
their heads and hide their faces when, instead of piquing
themselves on their esprit de corps, and the high character
burno by its members, and on their profession being an
honourable one, they found the person whom they ought
justly to look up to and revere as the head of the profession
tainting and polluting in its very source the administration
of justice by more than suspicion of corrupt and gross
practices in favour of his family. (Hear, hear.) He (Mr.
Longfield) proposed to go through the report of the com-
mittee and to call attention to the dates of the different
transactions, interspersing an observation now and then,
for the purpose of connecting them . with one another.
The house would then see how grave the matter had
become, and why the public imperatively demanded that
the earliest possible notice- should be taken of it in this
house. The Government, he believed, could have no rea-
son, political or otherwise, in screening the offenders from
justice, and if that justice could not be meted out in the
strict measure of the law, the Government could have no
object in not meting out to him the same measure of jus-
tice which he himself insisted upon being meted out to
those who, untried and unconvicted, were beneath his
power. (Hear.) He would now come to the commence-
ment of this melancholy, dark, and discreditable transac-
tion. The Lord Chancellor appeared to be a great law re-
former in bankruptcy, and passed a bill relating to the sub-
ject in 1861. He seemed to have slumbered and slept over
it, for there were no very lucrative appointments to bo
made, all the places which were valuable baying been
filled up by his predecessors ; and the office of chief judge,
the appointment to which ho was anxious to have, having
been rejected by both Houses of Parliament. In the year
1864, however, he awoke very .disagreeably from his
lethargy, and found in truth that everything was going
wrong everywhere in the Bankruptcy Court and all the
courts over which he had control throughout the country.
In particular there were grievous complaints from Leeds
as to the impropriety of conduct on the part of some of the
officers of the Court of Bankruptcy there. The paper num-
bered 295, referred to in the report of the Leeds Bank-
xuptcy Committee, contained some documents which gave
the first insight into the origin of these transactions, and
he (Mr. Longfield) would trace them date by date to their
conclusion, and the house would then see what the happy
conclusion would have been but for the scandal in another
place ; and they would also see the way in which this
nobleman fell a second time into the same unfortunate error
of ignoring guilt that he might profit by the guilty. On
the 6th April, 1864, Mr. Miller, the Registrar of the Court
of Bankruptcy, who was the intimate friend of all the
Bethells, addressed the following startling communication
to Mr. Wilde, of whose eyes and health they had already
heard : "By direction of the Lord Chancellor I lately trans-
mitted to Mr. Commissioner Ayrton the accounts of the offi-
cial assignees and messengers of the Leeds Court, with a vie W.
to an investigation of them, and in aletter dated the 27th ult.
Mr. Commissioner Ayrton writes as follows : ' I have not yet
looked into the accounts of the official assignees ; but, on.
opening the large paper returns made to you, I see the words
" Submitted to, and approved by, Mr. Commissioner Ayrton,
on the Bth April, 1862.—H. S. Wilde, Registrar." The fact
being that I never saw that sheet, or the accounts it refers
to, till I received it from you.' lam now directed by the
Lord Chancellor to ask what explanation you have to give
of this very grave offence. On the 9th of April Mr. Wilde
wrote a reply, and, as he heard no more of the matter, he

deemed it satisfactory. In the middle of April another per•

son appeared upon tho scene, and he regretted to add that
it was a clergyman, for it should be borne in mind that the
Lord Chancellor had a very considerable amount of ecclesi-
astical patronage. The person be referred to was the Rev.
G. Harding. On the 6th of May, 1864, an arrangement was
made, through-Mr. Harding, under which a cheque was given
by Mr. Welch to Mr. Bethel] for the sum of £5OO, for the
latter to use his influence with his father, the Lord Chan-
cellor, to procure an appointment for Mr. -Welch. Mr. Hard-
ing positively stated that the £5OO was to be paid down,
and that £l,OOO more was to be given, of which latter sum
Mr. Harding was to get a third. The bill, which was drawn
at a short date, was dishonoured, and Mr. Welch finding
that he did not obtain an appointment became dissatisfied.
But the committee elicited an account of a most extraordi-
nary transaction. It appeared that in Mr. Miller's letter-
book there was an entry in Miller's handwriting at the foot
of a page of a copy of a letter which he said had been sent
to Mr. Wilde. Now that was the only letter which Mr. Mi-
ller. had himself copied in the book, and the index to the
book contained an erasure and au interlineation, so that it
was manifest to every person who looked at it that this
letter was an interpolation, and that the index had been
altered to give colour to his letter of July. There could
not be the slightest doubt about that. Well, the bill be2came
due, and the place was not vacant, and communications
passed between Mr. Wilde and Mr. Bethel]. And here again
there occurred a miserable discrepancy between the for-
getful principal and the skilful deputy. The hopeless
contradictions between Mr. Miller and the Lord Chan-
cellor in everything that was important in dates were
such that, if they were permitted to continue without public
notice being at once taken of them, certainly the purity of
the administration of justice and of official appointments
must for ever hereafter bo despaired of. On the 26th of
July, Mr. Miller, finding it necessary to be a little expedi-
tious, and after communication with the Lord Chancellor,
wrote this letter—" It grieves me much to inform you that
unless I hear in course of post that you, mean to apply to
be allowed to retire, I have instructions from the Lord
Chancellor to serve you with notice to appear before him
publitly in open court, and show cause why you should not
be dismissed from your office of registrar. It is said that
your state of health is-such that you can have no difficulty
in obtaining such a medical certificate as would entitle you
to retire under the 33d section of the Bankruptcy Act,
1861; and if this be so, I sincerely trust, for your own sake,
that you will see the propriety of relieving the Chancellor
from the very disagreeable, and indeed painful, duty which
is thrust upon him." Mr. Miller stated before the commit-
tee that the first portion of this letter was strictly in accord-
ance with the directions of the Lord Chancellor ; but the
second part ho attributed to his over zeal, and said that he
had not written it by authority. At all events, however,
it answered its purpose completely. (Hear, hear.) Mr.
Wilde transmitted a certificate given by Mr. Samuel Hey,
as follows—" I hereby certify that I have been consulted
by Mr. H. S. Wilde, on account of a failure in his sight,
which was a serious hindrance to him in the performance
of the duties of his office. Mr. Wilde first consulted me
in August, 1863. At his age I cannot look for any im-
provement in his vision." He (Mr. Lougfield) had not for
a long time past seen a gentleman who appeared to be more
sharp-sighted than Mr. Wilde. (A laugh.) That certificate
was transmitted to Mr. Miller, who actually drew up the
petition for Mr. Wilde's resignation, and he stated that he
laid the petition and all the documents before the Lord
Chancellor. The certificate, affidavit, and petition were sub-
mitted to the Lord Chancellor by Mr. Miller on the 30th
June. Mr. Miller stated that he called the attention of the
Lord Chancellor to the unsatisfactory character of the cer-
tificate. But the Lord Chancellor said, that putting the
language of the three documents together, he considered
there was a sufficient case to allow Mr. Wilde to retire.
Conscientious and kind-hearted Chancellor. (Laughter.)
That was Mr. Miller's version. But what was the Lord
Chancellor's ? The Lord Chancellor made matters worse.
The Chancellor stated he could not remember his attention
having been called to the papers ; but he admitted that the
three papers had been presented to him, and that he ought
in strictness to have read them all. But that was precisely
what Mr. Wilde should have done with his accounts.
(Hear, hear.) Poor Mr. Wilde was dismissed, or at least a
strong hint was given him that he ought to retire while the
Lord Chancellor still occupied the woolsack. The Lord
Chancellor stated that hicertainly could not have read the
medical certificate, or he should not have allowed it to pass.
There was a confession for the keeper of her Majesty's
conscience to make, that ho had connived at a fraud on the
part of an officer whom ho had summoned before him ; or,
at best, that on a sham certificate which he did not go
through the formality of looking at, ho allowed an officer
to escape the punishment due to his detected crimes. They
all knew it had been said that a judge who would not
punish would in time connive and at length participate in
.'rime. They had hero the Lord Chancellor not punishing
but conniving, and he would presently show him partici-
patinj. The Lord Chancellor stated he considered he had
no alte.-native, and he therefore allowed Mr. Wilde to re-
sign and signed the order for his pension. Upon this the
committee :remarked " that such haste and want of caution
necessarily rave rise to suspicion that a vacancy in the
office was the object sought rather than justice to the officer
or the public. "
Mr. HEADram—Read on.
Mr. LoNGFL.ELD resumed—He would read on, as he

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 also awilful 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 ho had never heard
before (a laugh), or from the audacity and insolence of office,

which was characteristic of the man, for the high position

be 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 clay 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. Bethell, 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 te- the Lord Chancellor's son. The committee
thought that no imputation rested upon the Lord Chancel-
lor in this matter. But what, ho 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,
1861, ho 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 month a
further sum of £5OO. With reference to ►.hese money
transactions the committee stated that the evidence of Mr.
Harding was irreconcilable with that of Mr. Welch and Mr.
Bethell, 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 ignoro the existence of the facts, and not
pass judgment on them. The committee stated co 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
whollyundeserving of it, and who could not have obtained
it but for the connivance of the Lord Chance Hot:. They had
next Harding, Welch, and Bethell 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 committeereported
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 2Gth 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 be 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 uudor these cir-
cumstances be still Lord Cflaneellor—(hear, hoar)—when,
at the indignant call of the country, the pension granted
by reason of his misconduct had been rescinded. Was there
no pride among men ? was there no attempt to make his
conduct pure in the oyes of the country ? Was he insen-
sible to shame ? was horeally 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 hou. and learned gentleman, or with the ques-
tions which ho 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 aro 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. Tho 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 a 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 where 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 I 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 learnedgentleman 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 the 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 pecuniary embarrassment. From that day to

his 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 those very inquiries. Whatever may be the culp-
ability of that person, it is the deep misfortune of tho 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 bo in a position when the evidence is
before the house to challenge any one to show that when
Mr. Bothell 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 repre-
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 bo done. lie 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
come 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 he 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 ho 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 Goirernment thought it their
print they took
seas
yaslainst the resolution
idtuitnytotocodiaos.idAersatsioonon,
and
dthoins rseapoturtrd
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
atekde the criminal proceed-
in the charge of corrup-
tion ge they foundagainst s uthe
c pi eenrst
og:so
iumnpdlsi,c
at
which the committee appear to think ought to be taken.
I believe the house will be of opinion that that is the pro- I
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
nuponagainst a in
s whichthose
that
persons.
Am chargeongst other individuals Mr.
Welch is one of those who, if the committee have come to
aright 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 what steps ought to be taken with regard to Mr. Mil-
ler. 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. _ .

Sir. HARDY contended that, by allowing Mr. Wilde 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, as a 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 tho conduct of the
Lord Chancellor, who, he said, had suffered from 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. 31iller had been cognisant of all that Richard Bethell
was doing, and also inflicted some punishment upon Miller
for his rash misuse of his official trust. For there could be
no doubt that the 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 PALIIERSTON—Sir, lam sorry to prolong this
discussion, even by a few words, but I cannot let it close
without expressing thepain—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
commenting upon the conduct of peroono belonging to the

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 all events 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 bo 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. Ho was perfectly justified in stating
that which was borne out by the evidence ho heard, but he
wits not justified in that bitterpersonal 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 stops 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 persons implicated. 1 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
hen. 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 OP
• 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 aro 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 Gth, 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 houso
will be of opinion that the Government is right in prefer-
ring 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.)
PLACES OF DETENTION.

Mr. H. B. SHERIDAN, who had a notice on the paper
for a select committee to inquiro into the mode in which
persons, unconvicted of any crime or offence, are treated
in places of detention, withdrew it for this session, and
expressed a hope that the subject would receive attention
in the next P artiament.
The house then adjourned at a quarter past eight o'clock.

SPIRIT OF THE PUBLIC JOITRNALS.

TlMEi.—Lord Derby laboured on Monday under
;he great disadvantage of having his majority in his

pocket. It led him to trifle with his subject, and to
entertain sympathetic listeners with historical re-
miniscences instead of practical reasons. His for-
tune was made for him, and he had only to amuse
himself. He had little to say to existing difficulties,
to the living generation, with its conscience still

quick and still perplexed, but a great deal to say to
prelates and politicians, and associations and decla-
rations, and controversies and debates from the
reign of James I. to the year 1829. It was all
very interesting, but not much to the purpose. The
real questions now are the fair interpretation of the
Roman Catholic Oath and its actual operation in
the present day. There might have been very
good reasons five hundred years ago why every
Irishman' should be compelled to cut his hair short,
_ _

why Jews should be obliged to wear yellow gabar-
dines and confine themselves to one small quarter,
why a tradesman's wife should, be forbidden the
dress of a lady, and why a Roman Catholic gentle-
man should not b' permitted to keep a horse ; but
if these rules were still statutory, the question
we should have to ask and to meet would
be their present justice and usefulness. Lord
Derby, indeed, was not wholly silent upon the
interpretation and the operation of the Oath. In
the first place, he is ready to admit that in these days
a Roman Catholic gentleman may reasonably ask to
be excused a declaration that he is not an equivi-
cator, a rebel, or a murderer. But for a point of
etiquette and respect to the Lower House he would
have proposed himself to strike these things out of
the oath. What he and four-score peers will not give
up is the repudiation of designs upon the Established
Church andthe general settlement of property. They
think it desirable that a Roman Catholic gentleman,
_ _

upon taking his seat in the Legislature, should
solemnly swear that lie will defend the existing
settlement of property, that he does not intend
to subvert the Church Establishment, and that he
will not use any privilege he may possess against the
Protestant religion or Protestant Government.
What we miss in Lord Derby's speech is some
account of the probable operation of this part of
the oath and the positive reasons for retaining it.
To indicate what we want we will suppose that an
ancient but greatly improved mansion was injured,
as some thought, by the immediate vicinity of a
pond, or a moat, or a dozen pollard oaks, relics of
the mighty past. They might have been very use-
ful, very necessary indeed, and very ornamental in
their day, before the pond had been superseded by
a deep well, the moat and drawbridge by the rural
police, and the pollards by a beautiful shubbery ;
but the present question is what good they do
now, and how they look now. If they are not
only superfluous, but nuisances also, a sensible man
will not retain them from purely ancestral conside-
rations, most probably not of a cheerful character.
As to the settlement of property, Lord Derby
does not pretend that a single Roman Catholic
member, not the most lackland young Irishman, is
more ready for a destruction of new tide-deeds and
a hunt for old parchments and endless genealogies
than any other member. We cannot remember to
have heard from the mouth of any Irishman one
single lax expression as to the right of the existing
settlement. The declaration, in its actual and posi-
tive import, is so much surplusage. But Lord Derby
says that, if we ceased to require it, the Irish pea-
santry would hear of it, and would immediately con-
clude it to be no longer unlawful to seek to wrest
estates from their present owners in favour of men
supposed to represent the dispossessed owners, and
generally not to recognise the rights of the existing
owners. But it certainly is hard that a gentleman
Ahould be compelled to repudiate an error because a

peasant may possibly entertain it. The encourage
ment to these foolish traditions, if any, would only
be momentary, for in a few years it would be for-
gotten that members had ever had to make the re-
pudiation. As to the other point which Lord Derby
wishes to retain, the repudiation of designs upon the
establishment and the promise do no harm to the
Protestant religion and the Government, his own
interpretation, indeed his own life, rises in judg-
ment against him. He does not think that the oath
should prevent Roman Catholic members from
voting upon questions affecting the. Church esta-
blishment and the Protestant religion and Govern-
ment. But, if there be no hindrance, it becomes a
duty, and a duty which a man must discharge upon
his own responsibility, not as we may choose to pre-
scribe for him. Lord Derby has himself invited the
assistance of Roman Catholic members to aid him in
reducing the number of Irish bishoprics, and h?, ac-
cepts with thanks their assistance in measures re-
ducing the. nominal property of the Irish Church,
and reducing its apparent status, though increasing
its security and usefulness. But, after all, the gene-
ral good must be the only rule of legislation, for no
partial good can be real and permanent. This is a
calculation which each man must make for himself.
Then, as to the actual effect of this part of the oath,
Lord Derby does not say that it does the Church or
Protestantism any good. It may have vexed a few
scrupulous men, but it has certainly not affected one
vote, one speech, one division, or the fate of a single
measure. Of course, its spares Dissenters, who on
principle object to an Establishment, which Roman
Catholics do not, and has even tended to an alliance
between Roman Catholics and Dissenters. The only
real operation of the oath is its insulting, irritating,
perplexing effect on the mind of the Roman Catholic
member. It represents the policy which taught us
to ask the public registration of the monastic orders
under the idea that every priest was a Jesuit in dis-.
guise. Professing to be armed against treason and
conspiracy, it suggested crimes. Such a debate,
such a line of opposition, and such a result belong
to the bygone days, when Parliament met not as
a deliberate body and the general Council of the
whole nation, but as a Council of War against an
open enemy. The tone of Lord Derby's speech
would have been admirable if Ireland had
seceded from the Union, and we were con-
sidering what terms we could offer it with
safety and consistently with historical precedent.
But instead of an armed secession, we have
the fact of some six or seven millions living among
us in the interchange of good services. In fact, they
are of us, and only happen to be not quite so many,
or so rich, or perhaps so prudent, as the rest of us.
All our deliberations are as much in their interest as
in our own, and, if it is not necessary to our own
safety to lay them or their representatives under
offensive oaths, it becomes our plain duty to relieve
them of the infliction. But, says Lord Derby, the
bill before the house would have gone too far.
While professing only to relieve Roman Catholics,
it would have given them an advantage as compared
with members of the Church of England by sparing
the recognition of Royal supremacy in spiritual
causes. What does his lordship expect of Govern-
ment or the Legislature ? .Was the bill to be a
serious affair or a very bad joke? It would have
been a very bad joke indeed to propose to relieve
Roman Catholics by requiring them to recognise the
Sovereign as Head of the Church. Grant that the
terms and the jurisdiction implied are older than
the Reformation, and that there was a time when
English Roman Catholics admitted the Royal supre-
macy. This was, however, when the King himself
was Roman Catholic, and when matters were on
that footing between the King and the Pope that
the subjects of the former could suppose that they
had the consent of the latter for what they did.
As things now are in this country, the Royal and
Papal supremacies are irreconcilable, and Lord
Derby was only proposing to clog the gift with an
impossible condition. But we appeal from a state
of war to a state of peace and union. The Roman
Catholics are our fellow-subjects, and really as good
subjects as the Dissenters and ourselves. We have
no right to place them under our axes and harrows
except for self-preservation. But there is no such
danger. The danger is in jealousy and suspicion,
for they irritate, estrange, and prevent cordial co-
operation. It is a law of nature that we make
people what we choose to think them and as we
choose to trust them. It is thus that we can drive
the quietest and most loyal into faction and rebel-
lion. By a contrary course—that is, by smoothing
away old differences and effacing the landmarks of
faction—we can make them one with us. Lord
Derby was once forward to lead in this good work.
Why not end as he began ?
POST. —ln calling the attention of the House of
Commons to the report published on Saturday last
by the Select Committee appointed to inquire into
the circumstances of Mr. Wilde's resignation of the
Registrarship of Bankruptcy at Leeds, and the sub-
sequent appointment of Mr. Welch, Mr. Longfield
justly laid himself open to the charge of being too
hasty. That report is in the hands of the public, but
the evidence on which it is founded will not be in
their hands before Thursday or Friday next. Whe-
ther the Lord Chancellor has laid himself open to
those charges of corruption brought against him by
Mr. Longfield is no doubt a legitimate matter for
discussion in the House of Commons, but the Attor-
ney-General had certainly common sense and common
justice on his side when he protested against any
decision being pronounced before the complete
evidence on which the committee based their report
is in the hands of those who act as the Lord Chan-
cellor's judges. Adopting this view, we will for
the present postpone any analysis of the scanty
evidence set forth in the report, evidence which the
Attorney-General states furnishes a faint, and pos-
sibly erroneous, idea of the testimony on which the
committee acted. If the report, with such facts as
it sets forth, be accepted as the basis for arriving at
a conclusion' it is apparent that no-choice is left
but to accept the decision of the committee. To
act otherwise, as Mr. Longfield did last night, is to
adapt the premises according to 01114 Own bias and

to ignore the conclusion at which the committee
arrived. The guilt or innocence of the highest per-
sonage in the land, as of the lowest, ought to be
determined on the most ample evidence which can
possibly be obtained. There are two different modes
in which the report of the Select Committee may be
treated, namely, the verdict pronounced may be ac-
cepted as final, irrespective of the evidence on
which it is based, or it may be discarded, and the
evidence alone employed as furnishing the means
to each individual of arriving at his own con-
clusion. Now, although it is open to the House
of Commons to accept or to reject the report
as it may think proper, still it must be ap-
parent that those who had the opportunity of
examining the witnesses, judging of their de-
meanour, and estimating at its proper value the
evidence which they gave, are the best qualfied to
arrive at an accurate decision. The select committee

have exoneraied the Lord Chancellor, but on the
evidence before them it is suggested that they should
have passed on him somewhat more than that mild
censure with which they have thought proper to visit
him ; or, in other words, the Chancellor having been
acquitted by the tribunal before which he was cited,
the public would be justified in reversing the verdict,
and declaring him to be guilty. Now, such a course
of proceeding Would appear to be as unfair as it
would be unsatisfactory. Both in connection with
the appointment of Mr. Welch to the Registrarship
of Bankruptcy at Leeds, and the supposed arrange-
ment by which Mr. Welch was to have made room
for Mr. R. Bethel, by being transferred to London,
the committee declared that the Lord Chancellor
was absolutely guiltless. There may have been a
corrupt agreement between Mr. Welch, Mr. Bethel,
and Mr. Harding, but there was certainly no evi-
dence to fix the Lord Chancellor with a knowledge of

it, and if if one were to judge of the case by its pro-
babilities, we should say that nothing was more un-
likely than that the patron should have known of the
terms on which his patronage was purchased. Mr.
Welch had, long previous to his appointment, ap-
plied to the Lord Chancellor for office, and had ac-
companied his application with testimonials the cor-
rectness and value of which have not been questioned.
It would therefore have been impossible for the
committee, without obvious injustice, to have cen-
sured Lord WestbUry for the appointment of Mr.
Welch, simply because the latter purchased the influ-
ence of the Chancellor's son. As regarded the sug-
gested replacement of Mr. Welch by Mr. Bethel,
the evidence showed conclusive that within two days
after Lord Westbury, yielding to repeated solicita-
tions, had thrown out a hint that in the event of his
son's obtaining a release from his creditors he would
obtain a country appointment, he altered his inten-
tion, and declared positively that he would give him
no office. The evidence of Mr. Skirrow is clear on
this point, and Mr. Miller, the chief registrar, him-
self admitted ;,hat the orders of appointment which
were made out by him were never shown to Lord
Westbury, nor did their existence come to his know-
ledge until the recent inquiry before the select com-
mittee had been ordered by the House of Commons.
On this issue also the committee had no alternative
but- to declare the Chancellor blameless. The cir-
cumstances attendant on the resignation of l‘fr•
Wilde, and the grant to that gentleman of a retir-
ing pension, are those which undoubtedly press
heaviest against the Lord Chancellor. The com-
mittee have acquitted hina of improper motives, but
on his own admission it is impossible to say that he
was not guilty of an amount of negligence which
may well seem inconsistent with that good faith
towards the public for which the select committee
have given him credit in their report. Mr. Wilde
I had committed indiscretions so serious as to justify
the Lord Chancellor in calling on him to show cause
in open court why he should not be dismissed,
and yet within .the very same week he was per-
mitted to retire on a pension of £666 a year, or
only one-third less than his working salary. Lord
Westbury, one might have imagined, would have
been somewhat surprised that a gentleman whom
he threatened with dismissal for misconduct should
by return of post petition to be allowed to retire to
an invalid, and curiosity to discover the ailment
which had so opportunely incapacitated Mr. "Wilde
from discharging his functions as a public officer
one would have supposed might have prompted him
to examine the medical certificate on which the
petition for a retiring pension was based. But Lord
Westbury told the committee that he never looked
at the certificate, and, further, that if he had done
so he would not have acceded to Mr. Wilde s ap-
plication. Of this point the Lord Chancellor is
contradicted by Mr. Miller, who states that he called
the attention of his lordship to the unsatisfactory
nature of the certificate, but Mr. Miller's evidence
is so replete with contradictions that it cannot with
safety be relied upon. Admitting, however, the
Chancellor's version to be accurate, it must be con-
ceded that he discharged a trust confided to him by
the public with a carelessness which justly exposes
him to severe censure. The committee express the
opinion that the chief object of all the parties con-
cerned appeared to be rather to procure a vacancy
than to the public interests, and the ap-
pointment of -Mr. Welch to the vacant post does
certainly not tend to negative this presumption.
When, however, the entire evidence adduced before
the committee is published, a better opportunity
will be bffered to all parties of deciding on the
justice of the general verdict pronounced by
the
select committee.