The Norfolk post. [volume] (Norfolk, Va.) 1865-1866, 1865-07-20
MINISTERIAL SCANDAL IN ENGLAND.

vestigations into alleged delinquencies
in office on the part of Lord Westbury
the Lord Chancellor. The charges
brought before both Houses of Parlia-
Lament, so far as we can make them
out from the very small amount ofinfor-
nation we have upon the subject, were
that he had appointed scape-grace son
of his to an important office, in his de-
partment, in the face of he himself hav-
ing declared that this same son had been
"a disgrace and source of infinite sorrow
and reproach to him for the past ten
years. This hopeful scion of noble
house, it would seem, after his appoint
ment, had been guilty of such corrup-
tions in office and laxity in morals, as
to have rendered it necessary on the
part of Parliament to still further rend
the heart of his parent, and bring dis
credit to the family by compelling the
future historians of England to couple
his name with official censure and If not
with crime. Lord Westbury must al
ready have felt severely enough the bit
ing of the serpent's TOOTH" and might
have been spared this additional aggra-
walton at the hands of his peers, especi-
ally as they proposed to go no farther
than to administer sort of unnecessary
reprimand. If they found no grounds
for punishment no reason for criminal
proceedings, respect for the feelings of a
great man, holding one of the most dig
nifed and important positions in the
English government, would have de-
manded that the secret deliberations
of the committees should never have
been made public by presentations
in parliament. We do things diff
ferent in this country and avoid
much scandal. Congressional inquiries
are never made public unless the
charges have previously been publicly
made on good and sufficient grounds for
trial, censure or removal from office, are
found to exist. So tender are we of the
feelings, and careful Of the reputation of
our great men, that scandal is never al
lowed to receive official countenance or
Endorsement unless there appears posi-
tive evidence of its truth or probability
There were other charges besides that
of the knowledge of his sons worthless
ness. It was alleged that he had accept
ed the recommendation Of this son in
favor of one of his partners in sin and
corruption named WEIGH, but for what
position the information does not dis
close. He was also accused of permit
ting two officials, Edmunds and Wilde,
against whom grave charges were pend
ing before Parliament, to retire on PEN
sions.
Great dissatisfaction is manifested by
the English people In regard to the man.
ner in which the Committee of the
House of Commons treated the matter.
In the very face Of the evidence before
them, it is alleged, they acquitted the
Chancellor of all charges, except that
of haste and want of caution in granting
pension to Mr.. Wilde; while on the
other hand the report of the Committee
of Lords seems to have been received
with general favor, and that report
merely censures the Chancellor for per-
uniting Mr.. Edmunds to retire with
heavy charges proveanpgainst him, and
on his Withholding from the committee
the evidence on which the pension was
cancelled. The Times remarks: "there
were, in fact, three substantial charges
against the Lord Chancellor, on all of
which the committees acquitted him,
in order TO find him guilty ofthe fourth"
1t then goes on to show that the great
est of these charges, of which he was
not convicted, was that of confiding in
his disreputable son. The result of all
this was, however, that the House of
Commons, laying aside its democratic
prejudices, met the question in spirit
of fairness, and, disregarding the report
of their committee, acquitted the Chan
cellor of all knowledge of his sons cor
rupt practices; and convicted him, not
of haste and want of caution in the alb
stract, like their committee, but of
/" laxity of practice and want of eau
ton with regard to the public interest in
sanctioning the grant of retiring pen
sions to public officers, against whom
grave charges were pending, which, in
the opinion of this House, are calculated
to discredit the administration of his
great office" On the second charge,
that of acting on the recommendation
OF son, "who had been disgrace and
source of infinite sorrow and reproach
10 MIN during the last ten years." the
House pronounced no opinion; and, al
though we have not hesitated to do so,
we do not in the least question the pro-
priety OF their silence, especially as the
censure which they thought fit to pro-
nounce was not accompanied, like the
resolution of the committee. with
sweeping acquittal Of all other CHARGES
In referring to this parliamentarv
scandal the Daily Nesos says:
1t is now nearly ten years since the
House of Lords, under the guidance of
Lord Lyndhurst, Lord Brougham, and
Lord Campbell, refused to acknowledge
the right of the Crown to create life
peers who should sit and vote in Parlia-
mani Rut surely there o,Iuht IN ho