shall not listen to any proposal for his return to | with Mr. Welch the Lord Chancellor had this country for some years."

no means whatever of suspecting their existence. The hon. Member who has proposed the present Motion (Mr. Hunt), pressed by the necessities of his position, says he does not mean to charge the Chancellor with knowing anything about these

That was the way in which the Lord Chancellor wrote about a son who, it is now assumed, had so much influence over him that he was listening to that son's opinion as to how public offices should be filled. It is not fair that a great reputa-proceedings; but that he ought to have tion should be imperilled on suspicions and guessed what was going on. Why? The surmises like these. That the Lord Chan- Lord Chancellor received testimonials in cellor was sincerely indignant to the heart's favour of Mr. Welch from leaders of the core at what had occurred, and that he Northern Circuit. But then, said the hon. was determined that no parental feeling Gentleman, these testimonials are easily should prevent him from dealing out jus- given in favour of any member of the Bar. tice to his son, there can be no doubt, and I hope not; but, if so, the hon. GentleI cannot understand how it could possibly man's Resolutions had much better have be imagined that Mr. Bethell, who at that been directed against the leaders of the time was under a cloud so dark, should Northern Circuit than against the Lord have the slightest influence in regard to Chancellor. Those gentlemen were perthe proceedings which the Lord Chancellor sons of great name, and if their testimotook. Mr. Bethell went abroad, and came nials are misleading, how is the Lord back in September without the leave of the Chancellor to protect himself against being Lord Chancellor, who had never heard of deceived? I, however, am certain that him excepting upon one occasion by letter. not a single gentleman would have put his If there is justice in this House-and I hand to these testimonials while entertainam sure there is-I am sure that not a ing a different opinion. The Lord Chansingle man, laying his hand upon his heart, cellor gave these recommendations the would say that from the 13th of May, weight he thought they deserved, and the when the thunder-cloud broke upon the testimonials were to be found entered upon Lord Chancellor, down to the present the Lord Chancellor's patronage book, on time at all events down to February, the 21st of May, 1864, after the disgrace 1865, Mr. Richard Bethell's influence had of Mr. Richard Bethell, and after he had anything to do with the filling up of these ceased to have any communication with offices. But it is said that Mr. Welch had his father. With regard to these transacsome influence, and it is insinuated that tions Mr. Miller's conduct does not appear that was the reason why Mr. Wilde was so very satisfactory, though I do not mean to summarily dismissed and that Mr. Welch say that there is any ground to impute to obtained the office. The hon. Member Mr. Miller the slightest motive as regards states that Mr. Miller was Mr. Bethell's his own personal advantage. He, however, friend. He was, and he did, whether seems not to have exercised his functions wisely or not, his best to keep Mr. Bethell with prudence in so important an affair, in office; but from the 15th of May, 1864, being acted upon by the sorrow he felt for until February, 1865, the Lord Chancellor the young man whose name was so much never saw or heard from Mr. Bethell. mixed up in these proceedings. Be that Therefore Mr. Bethell's influence could not as it may, it is plain that Mr. Miller was have operated in his mind; and, as for not actuated by any motives with reMr. Welch, he knew nothing about him spect to Mr. Wilde's office, because it was except that in December he heard that Mr. on the 16th of May that he states he adWelch was applying for office. The hon. vised the Lord Chancellor to dismiss both and learned Member for Mallow (Mr. Mr. Wilde and Mr. Payne together on the Longfield) stated the other night that be- ground of Mr. Ayrton's report. Now we tween the 15th of May and the 26th of come to the 26th of July. The Lord July, Mr. Bethell and Mr. Welch were Chancellor had waited for nearly six weeks, applying to Mr. Miller for the purpose of or from the 9th of June, the date when procuring a vacancy in Mr. Wilde's office; he supposed that copies of Mr. Commisbut, unless my memory deceives me, there sioner Ayrton's report had been sent to is not a word to that effect in the evidence. Mr. Wilde and Mr. Payne; and in the The evidence is conclusive that Mr. Miller meantime he had been considering the case had no communication with Mr. Welch; of Mr. Templer, who manfully came forand as to Mr. Richard Bethell's relations ward to answer the charges against him,

Mr. Miller had waited six weeks for an answer, and was quite entitled to one. Besides this, Mr. Miller's letters are all peremptory his is not the polite style of letter writing. If you look to the Report of the Bankruptcy inquiry, you will find that Mr. Miller adopts a similar style in other portions of his correspondence. He wrote, for example, to Mr. Templer about £1,100 which Mr. Templer owed; and, although that may be a sum not always at the command of a messenger in bankruptcy at an hour's notice, Mr. Miller peremptorily required it to be sent by the next morning. With regard to the medical certificate, the Committee express the opinion that the Lord Chancellor acted with undue haste and want of caution in allowing Mr. Wilde to retire upon a pension. I will not dispute that proposition, although I think the words are rather stronger than is necessary. It is very easy, when you have the whole surrounding circumstances before you, and are arguing this matter with something of the bias of certain quarters-it is very easy to apply the plummet and the rule, and to say it was not right for the Lord Chancellor to allow a retiring pension under such circumstances. In my opinion that letter was sufficient if it were right to allow Mr. Wilde to retire at all. But we have seen, not only in this, but also in the Edmunds' case, how facile is the transition from the accusation of driving an innocent man out of his office to the accusation of granting a guilty man a pension. Whether the Lord Chancellor gave this case all the consideration which it demanded is quite a different question. But you must look at how the matter stands. The charges against Mr. Wilde have been brought, more or less, against the officers of all these Courts. They have all failed sufficiently to audit their accounts

and to show cause why he should not be dismissed. He did show such cause, and he was not dismissed. If Mr. Wilde and Mr. Payne had taken the same course, they would have received an equally fair hearing. But on the 26th of July, no answer being returned by them, the Lord Chancellor felt that that could not be allowed to go on indefinitely, and said to Mr. Miller, "You must write and tell Mr. Payne and Mr. Wilde that they must come and show cause in open court why they should not be dismissed.' I believe that Mr. Payne holds that he has been very illused, that there was no ground for his dismissal, and that he had not an opportunity of being heard. Far be it from me to pronounce an opinion on that point; but, be that as it may, was there any motive in regard to Mr. Wilde's case that did not equally exist in regard to Mr. Payne's? Was there any protégé of Mr. Richard Bethell's waiting for Mr. Payne's place also? We know that Mr. Payne, like Mr. Wilde, applied for his retiring pension; we know that Mr. Miller prepared the petition for the retiring pension for Mr. Wilde and Mr. Payne, doing precisely the same thing for the one as he did for the other, and that the Lord Chancellor, in filling up Mr. Payne's place as he did Mr. Wilde's, did not proceed upon any personal grounds, but appointed Mr. Stephens, whom he had never seen in his life, but whom he knew, as the editor of a professional work of some merit, to be a fit person for the vacant office. No doubt, Mr. Miller wrote in a strain which the Committee could not approve, and I entirely concur in their opinion on that point. In his letter he confused two matters which ought to have been kept entirely distinct -namely, the question of Mr. Wilde's showing cause why he should not be dismissed, and the question of a retiring pen--they have all, or at least a great many sion. I think the two things are so distinct that they ought to be in separate hands. But, be that as it may, the Lord Chancellor gave no authority for this part of Mr. Miller's conduct. It is said that Mr. Miller's letter was couched in threatening and startling language-that he said Mr. Wilde must reply by return of post as to whether he would resign his office or not. At first sight it does seem strong; but it must be remembered that the matter was no new one to Mr. Wilde; he had had information that such a notice would be served upon him as far back as the 16th of May. According to his own statement

of them have, certified accounts without the proper vouchers. What the Lord Chancellor did with Mr. Wilde he must have done with them all. If he was prepared to dismiss Mr. Wilde without a pension, he must be ready to deal in the same manner with Mr. Payne, an old public servant of eighty-two. If that was just, of course he was bound to do it; but in carrying out a great reform of a system like that, was it not a fair matter for the Lord Chancellor to consider whether he should proceed with an amount of severity towards individuals with which public opinion might not sympathize, and against

allowed to resign; but the Lord Chancellor distinctly says he never suggested to Mr. Miller that Mr. Wilde should be allowed to retire upon a pension. Whether Mr. Bond, a solicitor at Leeds, is altogether a more impartial judge than the tribunal which I am addressing may be greatly doubted; but he states that Mr. Wilde brought him the letter directing him to appear and show cause why he should not be dismissed. Mr. Bond says, "I knew that it was a foregone conclusion.' How did he know that? Did Mr. Templer get a letter of that kind, and did he not go and defend himself like a man, and did he not come back restored to his office? How did Mr. Bond jump so rapidly to his conclusion. It is plain from the evidence that Mr. Bond, to justify the sentence which he passes on that letter, recommended Mr. Wilde to become a party to that which he knew to be a fraud, upon the pretence that Mr. Wilde would not get justice if he went to defend himself in open court. Mr. Hey had recommended Mr. Wilde to retire on his pension, because he thought his eyesight had so much failed. Does not that prove that Mr. Miller was quite correct when he says that he knew that Mr. Wilde was in a position to obtain a certificate to retire? Why Mr. Hey was not called before the Committee I do not know; neither was Mr. Payne, although both might have given important evidence. There was not the same suggestion with regard to Mr. Payne; he was over age, and could retire on that ground alone. It is quite true that when the certificate came before the Lord Chancellor, he knew that Mr. Wilde's accounts had been in an unsatisfactory state. The Lord Chancellor says so himself. At the same time there was not only a certificate, but an affidavit and a petition. Mr. Wilde says that was prepared by Mr. Miller. That, undoubtedly, shows that he was very keen and absurdly officious; but Mr. Miller did for Mr. Payne the same that he did for Mr. Wilde. The certificate is in these terms

which local opinion unquestionably would strongly rebel? I say that that was a point which a statesman was entitled to consider. What were the circumstances themselves? The Edmunds' case has no analogy to this. That was a case of personal defalcation, where the party was accused of failure of duty for his own personal advantage. There was no such charge against Mr. Wilde. He was accused of borrowing money from his subordinate officer, but the amount was small, and he had repaid it; and the Lord Chancellor might have been content to administer a reprimand. Mr. Wilde said that Mr. Commissioner Ayrton had certified accounts when he really had not; but his explanation was, that he meant that Mr. Commissioner Ayrton had certified the same charges in the accounts of the previous year. He was accused of not examining sufficiently into the vouchers of the messengers; and his answer was, that that was true, but that he had only followed the example set him by Mr. Payne. We know that it is not so very long ago since charges for travelling expenses were made as a matter of course-that is to say, that officers who had not actually incurred them claimed and obtained payment for them. I am glad that the public officers are now better regulated. Well, the Lord Chancellor had to ask himself the question, "Am I to turn this man out of his office without any allowance, or am I simply to let him remain in office?" I think it would have been a harsh sentence upon Mr. Wilde to have turned him out summarily. The Lord Chancellor thought so, and I am not at all satisfied that if he had acted with the rigour which hon. Gentlemen opposite would now seem to approve, they would not have turned round and accused him of undue severity, and have found just as good reasons in their own estimation for imputing to him improper motives or the exercise of undue influence over him. Whatever excuses, however, might have been pleaded by Mr. Wilde for his conduct, they might not have justified his being permitted to retire on the allowance awarded to him; and certainly no intention to permit him to do so was expressed by the Lord Chancellor to Mr. Miller when my noble and learned Friend directed the latter to order Mr. Wilde to appear and defend himself. There was a question which the Lord Chan- That was written by a man who, as Mr. cellor said might possibly be entertained-Wilde says, had advised him to retire, and namely, whether Mr. Wilde should be the House will find that which is very im

"Leeds, July 28, 1864.

"I hereby certify that I have been consulted by Mr. Henry S. Wilde, on account of a failure in the performance of the duties of his office. in his sight, which was a serious hindrance to him Mr. Wilde first consulted me in August, 1863. At his age I cannot look for any improvement in his vision.-SAMUEL HEY, F.R.C.S."

portant stated in answer to Questions 947, | to consider, and I cannot help thinking I 948, 949, and 950— should have acted in the same manner. "How would you reconcile that statement with More consideration should have been given what you say in your petition, that you had for to the nature of the certificate; but, on some time past been afflicted with a failure in the other hand, I should not have hesitated your sight, and that it has now become so serious to allow Mr. Wilde to retire on a pension, that you are no longer able to perform satisfactorily the duties of your office-If I had had holding it best for the public that he should work to execute at night, I do not hesitate to resign. He was punished by resigning his say that I could not have performed it; that I office. It would have been a severe senshould not have been able to have continued; I tence to have sent him adrift. Corruption have had as many as twenty bills to do by candle-extended to other Courts as well as Leeds, light, and I could not do it. I may state that sometimes, when I have gone from Mr. Hey's to other officials as well as registrars; and steps, I have had difficulty to find my way down. And yet it has never occurred to you to make any claim for retiring?-I did not do so; Mr. Hey suggested to me that I should get relaxation, but I did not find the inconvenience so great as to induce me to do so. Chairman: Mr. Hey did suggest?-Yes, he did. Colonel Pennant: When

ruary, 1865. Mr. Richard Bethell went abroad and came back in December, 1864. And here I wish the House to listen to two letters which Mr. Skirrow produced before the Committee - they show the strong feeling of indignation with which he looked upon the career of his son. The first is written after Mr. Richard Bethell came back to England, and in which the Lord Chancellor writes

"Sunday.

"My dear Charles,-I am much disappointed As to Richard, it is hopeless; let him understand at your not coming down to-morrow.. that I neither can nor will ask for any place for him. I will increase his allowance to £1,000 per annum if he will go and live in Dresden or some other proper place, and educate his children there, where they can be well brought up."

So much for the first chapter of my on July 31. Mr. Wilde had resigned. He speech. I have dealt with the retirement now complains bitterly that he was frightof Mr. Wilde, and the appointment of ened into resignation; but it was with an Mr. Welch. When we are told that there alacrity that I cannot comprehend that he has been indecent haste in the appointment jumped at Mr. Miller's suggestion and deof Mr. Welch, I ask, how is that shown?clined to defend his acts in court. The I think the contrary is the case. We all Lord Chancellor heard no more until Febknow that when official appointments are to be made, the sooner they are made the better. Then, what foundation is there for this attack upon the Lord Chancellor ? It never had any foundation. It is based upon a delusion. The money transactions between Mr. Richard Bethell and Mr. Welch could have no influence on the appointment, if they were unknown to the Lord Chancellor, because Mr. Richard Bethell, not being in communication with his father for a long time, could not have exerted any influence in the matter. With respect to the transactions between Mr. Richard Bethell and Mr. Welch, I think it will be better for the House not to enter upon that question, especially as the Com. mittee have recommended a judicial inquiry. I do not think it is possible to defend Mr. Welch upon his own statement; but still I cannot accept the story that is told against him without some further proof. Mr. Harding, who unblushingly comes forward to confess that he expected to receive a bribe of £333 6s. 8d for being the go-between of Mr. Richard Bethell and Mr. Welch in the perpetration of a corrupt bargain, is not a wholly reliable witness. He is unworthy of credit. His story may be true or it may be false, but until he and a witness who did not think it prudent to attend before the Com-read. Let the House remember that this mittee are submitted to examination upon oath in open court, I cannot consent to condemn Mr. Welch, although I cannot approve his conduct. But, putting that aside, and admitting that Mr. Welch did advance £500 to Mr. Richard Bethell in the beginning of May, and that there have been other money transactions between them, they had not and could not have any connection with the proceedings which the Lord Chancellor instituted against Mr. Wilde. I therefore shall not go into those matters. Mr. Welch may have had his own opinion of what would follow from the advances he had made; but I say that the Lord Chancellor is not in the slightest degree implicated with those transactions. Implicated do I say? There is not the slightest chain of evidence to connect him with transactions of which he was purposely kept ignorant. The curtain falls determination

I appeal to all the Members of the Committee whether the evidence of Mr. Skirrow did not produce conviction on their minds. Well, on the 4th of January, 1865, Mr. Skirrow again went to the Lord Chancellor-and this is the account he gives of the interview. He says that whenever he referred to his son the Lord Chancellor assumed a different tone, and upon his quitting the room his Lordship put into his hand an envelope containing a letter addressed to his son, which he told him to

26th of the same month is supposed to letter is written by the man who on the have been influenced in the bestowal of his

patronage by an article which appeared in some weekly paper. The letter ran

'Richard,-Nothing will induce me to give you the place of Clerk at the Table if it should become vacant; you have been a disgrace and a source of infinite sorrow and reproach to me during the last ten years. I have given you every opportunity of amendment, but there is no hope of you, nor have I the least confidence in your ever having better principles. I will not see you again. Your best course will be to go to the Continent, and try, by attention to your wife and children, to make some amends to them for the grievous injury you have inflicted on them.” Mr. Skirrow did not deliver that letter, and he says he is not very sorry that he did not. On the 18th of February Mr. Skirrow again saw the Lord Chancellor, who, so far from relenting, showed still more