New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1865-07-18

We have so recently gwen lul sta'en'0"'
Of the case against the Chancellor that we need
only rccapitulate it. There have been two IN
yestigations-one known as the Edmunds case,
the other and later as the Leeds Bankruptcy
scandal. In the former tho Lord Chancellor
was shown to have recommended or acquiesccd
| in the recommendation of a retiring pension 10
an officer of the House Of Lords who maze
WAY for O son Of Lord Westbury. and whom ne
knew at the time to be guilty of population and
other crimes in Office. But this Otiense IN the
Lord Chancellor, though unsparingly denounced
in The Times was condoned in Parliament.
The Leeds case stood on different ground. IL
was distinctly proved that the Chancellor NM
selfcaused pension to be conferred upon me I'ee
istrar o, The Leeds Court OF Bankruptcy. although
charges of malioasarce were pending against
/ him at the time. 1t was proved also that tne
Office which Mr.. Wilde thus vacated was sought
| by Mr.. Welch, who had paid MIR. Klchard
Bethel. the son of the Chancellor, Gl,OoO Tor
! lis influence and that Immediately upon the
resignation of Mr.. Wilde Mr.. WEIGH was ap'
pointed. And the vote Of the House was equiv
alent TO declaration of its belief that the cor
rrpt practices of the Chanccllors son, though
they may not have been actually known 10 MS
father were assisted by the criminal careless
rcss Of the Chancellor in the administrator Oh
his dutics. That Mr. Richard Bethel was o
rascal that his father knew he was rascal and
that nevertheless he allowed his recommenda-
ton to influence his own official action, was adj.
mitt even by the partisans of Lord Wcstbury'
| NJ effort, no talent, no influence OF authority,
10 device of Parliamentary tactics, was spared
to save tho Lo.d Chancellor this humiliating
censure. His defense was pleaded by the Lord
Advocate and the Attorney-Genernl. When 1t
became evident that the defense had made no
impression on the House, Lord Palmorston him.
self came to the rescue, and in speech, which
would be laughable if it were not pitablc, based
n motion for adjournment upon his testimonials
TO the previous good character and services OF
the Lord Chancellor Said Palmcrston:
my honorable end learned friend. the Attorney
General has described how the Lord Chancellor hnS
disposed Of patronage much moro extensive aHd much
moro important IN "A manner highly deserving the con
tdcnce OF he country. The House should also reeo
oct the great improvement IN every amen OF the Nv
orcs OF Oh. oAr Question: and cheeIsj whicb 'na
present Chancellor hos introduced und which, what
may be tho opinion o, this House WIN regard 20
ms femme n. ori 80 ve~'nrs 9 say render bis
name illus, .or, l"J ~ T. ani Oh c. auons those OF
H., .rr fe,,-ntfsJ t.e Lw Of Ia o'rri.1. IL Is
n.tI s.Ify o,Hlut ~. soc yariOvE iLPr ~era.nts
- ioA To- he b 20 the autt'r Tho consoiIaton o.
sf.iuta lIy by which 1t has been reduce" rom ~
vo1nes TO- the practical abolition OF Imprisonment
for debt and many other Improvements Affecting every
class Of the community. Laughter ana cries Oh Vues
ton I" aud Z" OrGcr. oIdor"l
How English that is, Punch itself could do
nothing with such speech but give it rerOdhm
Because the Lord Chancellor had not al,cdys
disposed Of hispatronage corruptly or carelessly,
he ought not TO bepunished in those cases where
corruption or laxity was proved against him |!
Because he had consolidated the statute law,
he ought to be permitted to violate 1t with inn
punity But the House thought otherwise.
The report of tie proceedings becomes dramatic
in its rapidly. The motion to adjourn was
regatived, the Lord-Ady0catcs amendment
was nega,ived, Lord Palmcrston, amid storm
of cheers, announced that the Government
abandoned its Chancellor to the indignation
Of the House. and the resolution Of censure
was adopted without q division. On the fol-
lowing lny Lord Wostbury rendered his resig-
nation to the Queen, and it was instantly &C.
ccp.ed