New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1853-05-28
Gavan Duffy and Corrupton in Parliament.

To the Editor Of The London Jfssesf
SIR: Having met ana defeated the attempts OF cl amor
majority in The Hruse OF Commons compel t.
say ny words. find myself called upon answer ia your
colun ms new and widely different charge You affirm
that my original statement that "rithis e Int far
"doys' had seen practced the corruption which de-
nOuDced
do II know on what authority you make this charge,
but vhstever authOrt, it is totally untrue. Neither
your report Of the proceedings any report which
bave SEEN gives the smallest support II is not only
untrue but absurd The words attributed to in tls
ports are these
short .g.enes q a.. heu.e Ia. ben mus say do
corruption existed than have seen aotoed under my own eys
referred and repeated the identical phrase nalcs 10
my SUBJ. gu. obse rysOns reply 10 the appeals tde
to me by SIR George Grey aud Lord PamersiOn Is there
any pOs sby Of believing that who has sat in the
House Of Commons almost daily since the present P4ra
rneit met in November last, would say, Short my
perience in this house has been have seen &c. if he
had b+ep speaking Of the last few days" The charge
Won perceive is merely fabrication, but blunder
MY original statement from which never dsparted
HAN s breadth was this: . 49,
You are taxing sadl without consent More Irish mem
Ter. have sns hi. budget believe THAI sssn: any ms
heh gentleman who whips the Treasury forces Some
But short as my experience TIN. house has been" &c
have asceItaIned from personal inqury-what n1eed
/ never doubted for mOment-that the irish members
with whom act knew thoroughly from the first that re-
ferred to the of the who betrayed their public
and solemn engagements TO get into place Mr. Sergeant
Shee ihOu the aest communication with me, stated
tins TO the House IL even suggested, TIL alter
had withdrawn that my meaning that bag OF money
was carried by the wbpperin and the votes bought up
Ike borough electors much ahead 1t is too absurd
10 fancy that an independent mmbtr, in opposition to
Govern ent would have been permitted an opportunity OF
inspecting transactions OF this nature II they occurred
But have yet learn that corruption less corruption
because the who lses his life and be'rays his con
stueDs is not paid the broe in round sum- but by quar-
| teIly init ments at the Treasury
In your ordinary report of Fridays proceeding there is
an error which must ask to have corrected am made
TO say in reply to Mr. John Ball that did
my statement ofast night with the division Monday"
AS my quite differently reported in other papers
| ancy il imperfectly heard in the gallery. What
actually occurred this: Mr.. Ball was assuming
as understood that my explanation had references TO
transactions hch occurred Jour months ago., the Irish
membeIs not Office had of course concern with it.
interrupted this assumption with hasy negatives and
another assumption putting the Of his first prOpo
son with second negative. meant in fact, TO convey
ss briefly pOssibehat while charged the body
Of Irish supporters of the Budget with direct corruption
by The brides of money. could not the ether hand
give them bill of health merely because not i'm
peacbing them with The grossest venality.
our reporter winds up his of the second day
by stating that the business terminated amid considerable
laughter II is quite true but was the triumphant aagh
ter Of the opposition at Lord John Russell declining in
ouiry and at one of the cupr shrinking dumb and dis
btnd the Treasury bench when he expected
to defend himself For my part number Of the foremost
Numbers of the House, several of whom had not known
before to my place Immediately or throughout
the evening thank for having pre,erved the honor
of Parliament well my honor, by refusing to
uns&y syllable bad said
| am, Sir, your Obedent servant,
c. GAyAS DUFFY.