The Sun.
London, England, 1854-03-11 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, SATURDAY EVENING, MARCII 11, 1854.

SHARE MARKETS.

THE CHARGE OF CORRUPTION AGAINST
IRISH MEMBERS.

over. I published tho disclaimer of the bishops next day.
You were dissatisfied with the manner in which it was
done, and I don't think we have since spoken till we met
in this house.

(THIS DAY.)

This committee sat again yesterday- The proceedings
began by tho examination of
Thomas Woodham, publisher of the Standard, who pro-
duced a copy of that paper of Wednesday, February 22,
containing the following letter :
TO THE EDITOR OF THE 'STANDARD.'

The committee sat this forenoon, when the editor of the
Standard was examined. The room was crowded with
auditors yesterday, as on former days, and there is always
a large attendance of hon. members, principally Irish.

BRITISH RAILWAYS.

" As a tribunal has been appointed to give the Irish mem-
bers an opportunity of clearing themselves from the imputa-
sions of having received pecuniary benefits for situations
obtained through their interest in the Government, I think
it an act of justice to one of our county members to state
that a report is very general, and believed, that he received
a sum of 2,0002., by the satisfying of a judgment to that
amount against his property, from Mr. --, who had been
his solicitor, and to whom he was unquestionably heavily
indebted, for procuring his appointment to the lucrative
situation of --. These facts have been stated to Mr.
Butt, and other members of the committee, and I do hope
they will not be cushioned.
"AN ELECTOR OF THE COUNTY OF -."
He also produced the manuscript of that letter, which was
signed in full, "An Elector of the County of Cork," and
contained the name of Mr. Nagle, as the " solicitor," and
also the name of Mr. Burke Roche, M.P. These names
had been scored out before publication. Witness was en-
tirely ignorant of the individual who wrote that letter. It
was inserted in the columns of the Standard on the autho-
rity of Dr. Gifford, the editor.
Mr. Lucas was next called upon. He said that a case of
place-selling was mentioned to him by Mr. Napier, M.P.,
the late Attorney• General for Ireland. It was communi-
cated subsequently to witness's speech in the House of
Commons, and was quite unaccompanied by any injunction
of secrecy whatever.
Mr. Butt then read quotations of some length from the
Tablet, which Mr. Lucas admitted to have been written by
him. They contained the case he mentioned in the House
of Commons, and went on to say that the writer could
mention dozens of similar cases.

The Chairman—Will you mention any of those cases ?
Mr. Lucas —No .
Mr. Butt—Do I understand you to say that you decline
to communicate to the committee any one of those dozens
of cases which are now present to your mind?
Mr. Lucas—l do.

Mr: Butt—ls it the fact that several such cases are now
present to your mind ?
Mr. Lucas.—lt is. There are at least three. I entirely
refuse to communicate any one of them.
Mr. Bright—Your refusal is grounded on your personal
ignorance of the truth that may attach to those cases, and
on the confidence of private intercourse in which they were
communicated to you?
Mr. Lucas—Yes.

Lord Barrington—Yet you think yourself entitled to
publish them in the Tablet ?
Mr. Lucas—No, not to publish.
Lord Barrington—Generally to publish ?
Mr. Lucas—Yes.

Mr. Butt—But you go on to say, " The facts themselves
are true."

Mr. Lucas—That refers only to my belief. I have a per-
sonal belief in their truth.—The witness then went on to
say that he was perfectly able to state the names of mem-
bers cf Parliament and others who had mentioned cases of
the kind to him. Their names he had already refused to
communicate. 'But among their number there were some
members of the present committee, and their names he
would communicate if he was given to understand that the
call made upon him to communicate contained a waver of
the confidence under which the cases were stated.
()n this the room was cleared for a few minutes. On the
doors being re-opened,
The Chairman said—Mr. Lucas, I am directed by the
committee to inform you that it is their opinion that you
must answer the questions that are put to you. (To the
Shorthandwriter)—Read the last question.
The question was then read as follows :—Can you name
any member of this committee, or any member of Parlia-
ment, who can give us any information on the subject of
this inquiry ?
Mr. Lucas—l can. _ . _

The Chairman—Will you name him ?
Mr. Lucas—l cannot, unless I receive his permissionto do
so. I take the same course with reference to this case as
to the others. I absolutely decline to answer the qwzs-
tion, and I think it is a great act of courtesy on my part
to do so. _ .

The room was then again cleared. On our re-admission,
The Chairman, addressing Mr. Lucas, said—The com-
mittee do not consider you are bound by any consideration
of confidence to any member of this committee, and it is
their opinion that you ought to answer the question, and
they now say that you must do so.
Mr. Lucas—l have not now the least difficulty in answer-
ing the question. I think the hon. and learned member
for Youghal (Mr. Butt) could give the committee some
information. (Laughter.) I have also had a conversation
on the subject of this inquiry with the hon. member for
Manchester (Mr. Bright). (Renewed laughter.)
After a third short clearance of the room, Mr. Lucas
was desired to go on to state anything which had been
mentioned to him connected with the inquiry by a mem-
ber of the committee. He then said that, in conversation
with Mr. Butt on the subject of the constitution of the
committee that he (Mr. Butt) had moved for, he objected
to the name of the Solicitor-General for Ireland, and re-
quested that the late Attorney-General might be inserted
as a member on account of his having a certain degree of
information and belief on the subject. Mr. Butt, how-
ever, persuaded him to wave his objection by saying that
the member of committee in whose place he (witness)
wished to substitute Mr. Napier could mention a dozen
such cases. He would leave it to Mr. Butt to communi-
cate that hon. member's name. Some months ago the hon.
member for Manchester spoke to witness of a case affecting
Mr. Somers ; but Mr. Bright could explain it much better
than he.

Mr. G. E. H. Vernon—l believe you have mentioned in
the course of this inquiry that you think Mr. Keogh
stands in the pesition of being principally accused. How
do you make that out ?
Mr. Lucas—All this arises out of speeches made at
Tunm, which had reference to a system involving dis-
honourable conduct of every degree.
Mr. Vernon—Pray define your meaning a little more
accurately when you apply such terms to Mr. Keogh.
Mr; Lucas—l mean making promises and taking oaths
which were deliberately broken. (A laugh.)
Mr. Vernon—l wish you distinctly to inform this com-
mittee whether you now apply the term " corruption" in
any sense of trafficking in places ?
Mr. Lucas—l refer to it in that sense in which the com-
mittee understood it when they went at great length on
two days into the case of Dr. Power, of whom it was
alleged that ho sold himself for a place.
Mr. Vernon—Then, the term " dishonourable conduct
and corruption" is to apply to every hon. member who
takes office under a Government which you disapprove ?
Mr. Lucas—Nothing of the sort.
Mr. Vernon—What, then, do you charge ?
Mr. Lucas—l charge a gentleman with making promises
and taking oaths which he has not kept.
Mr. Vernon—From corrupt motives ?
Mr. Lucas—l charge corrupt conduct.
Mr. Henley—What corrupt conduct?
Mr. Lucas—l mean taking a place in December, 1852,
after Mr. Keogh's antecedents.
Mr. Vernon—Then it does resolve itself into taking a
place under a Government which you disapprove, such a
course being inconsistent, as you believe, with antecedents ?
Mr. Lucas assented.

Mr. Vernon—What do you mean by antecedents?
Mr. Lucas—l could not explain that without going at
great lenghth into Mr. Keogh's career, both public and
private,
Mr. Keogh—There have been three categories of cor-
ruption defined in the course of this inquiry. The first is
selling places for money. Do you mean to say that,
directly or indirectly, you ever charged or insinuated that
I was connected with such an offence as that ?
Mr. Lucas—Certainly not ; I disavow any such imputa-
tion against you.
Mr. Keogh—The second category is giving votes cor-
ruptly, to obtain patronage from the Government
Mr. Lucas—l do not mean to charge you with that.
Mr. Keogh—The third is giving votes corruptly, to ob-
tain places for themselves. Did you mean to charge me
with giving votes corruptly, to obtain a place for myself ?
Mr. Lucas —Well, I have difficulty in answering that
question. I have difficulty in saying whether you voted
in December, 1852, from a corrupt motive or not, Other
gentlemen voted in a similar manner from pure motives.
Except from your subsequent conduct, I have no means
of saying what were your motives in giving the vote which
got you your place. (A. laugh.)
Mr. Keogh—Then, in point of fact, neither of these
three categories will accurately express your meaning as to .
the charge you mean to snake against me ?
Mr. Lucas—No ; I mean to say that, in taking place,
you acted corruptly, and have acted corruptly ever since.
(Laughter )
Mr. Keogh then proceeded at some length to question
the witness about his authority for attributing to the
late Mr. Sheil (in the Tablet, as we understood) cer-
tain sentiments and expressions tending to tarnish
the late Ambassador's political character. They were
to the effect that on the occasion of any great politi-
cal debate, if the Government found themselves hard
pressed, they sent circulars to Irish members, saying
that such and such a place was vacant, that they (each
of the members) had been recommended to it, and
that it was not yet filled up, &c. ; that Lord John
Russell had calculated everything minutely, and that a
certain person connected with the Treasury (Messrs.
Tufnell and Hayter were Treasury Secretaries at the time)
held all the Irish members in the hollow of his hand. Mr.
Lucas refused to communicate the name of the person on
whose authority he had attributed these expressions to a
deceased gentleman, and ho thought himself justified in so
refusing.
Mr. Keogh—lt is now about 15 months since I took
office. Had not you and I very strong personal disagree-
ments long before that period ? In fact, did not I once
describe you, in your presence, at a large public meeting
at Athlone, as one who would plunge a dagger in a man's
back, but would never dare to do anything to his prejudice
openly in his presence ? (Confusion in the committee-
room.)
Mr. Lucas —I do not recollect that you used those ex-
pressions. You charged me with being a calumniator,
using the strongest language which could easily proceed
from human lips, and I said that whenever a coalition was
formed between Whigs and Tories Mr. Keogh would accept
the ,lace of Solicitor-General for Ireland.
Mr. Keogh—Did not you solicit rue, after using that
language to go to the office of Dr. Gray, of the Freeman
at Dublin, and strike that identical passage out of the
report ?
Mr Lucas— I will give you a distinct reply Mr. Keogh.
You called me to account the morning after that speech
was delivered as having charged you with conduct most
dishonourable, base, and disgraceful, when I said that,
I if a coalition were formed, such as that which now exists
you would take the office of Solicitor-General for Ire-
land. You insisted upon four Catholic bishops. then
present, disclaiming any participation in that charge,
because (you said) it was so disgraceful to you that if
You remained under it without getting the imputation
disclaime,l by the bishops, you could never enter a room
where Catholic politics were being discussed without a
scowl upon your countenance. The result of the conversa-
tion that morning was what, I think, I may properly de-
scribe as a reconciliation, and before we left the town of
Athlone you and I shook hands. It was agreed that, as
the report of that meeting would contain strong expres-
sions of mine against you, and as it was desirable, after we
had shakers hands, that there should be no record of differ-
ence, it was agreed that everything on both sides that had
an angry character should be struck out of the report, and
that was accordingly done.
Mr. Keogh—Did you not make an application to me to
go to the Freeman's Journal office, and strike out those
paragrophs.
Mr. Lucas—l said that I was going there to do so by
you, and I asked you to do the same by me.
Mr. Keogh—After that took place, is it not the case
that you and I were on bad terms?
Mr. Lucas—After that took place you and I were not on
any terms ; we ceased, to be on any personal terms what-