OUR HOME LETTER.

Evening Star, Issue 3816, 18 May 1875, Page 3

OUR HOME LETTER.

About a fortnight after Dr Kenealy took his -seat in the House of Commons a rumor that lie was about to complain of a breach of priviege attracted a very crowded house. The charge was preferred against Mr Ashley, who represents a constituency in the Isle of Wight, and who, in reply to a taunt at a political dinner was said to have remarked, “What do yon think a man who is the editor of ’the Englishman, and put a false witness into the box, is a fi < man i, r Parliament ? ” In reply to Ur Kenealy s interr nation Mi Ashley a 1mitted that the report was substantially correct ; he placed himseif in the hands of the. House, ami intimated that 1, ? regv. t ted-using the expression on that par*i*^ 1 r occasion, reserving to himself, however, the ngV of substantiating the truth of the statement, which he added. Dr Kenealy had had a proper opportunity of denying if Le wished Mr Loae deprecated the practice of allowing members to be called in question for language used out of the House. To constitute a breach of privilege the words must either be spoken in

the House, or of a member in his capacity as member. Mr Disraeli supported this view and recommended “ the memoer for Stoke,” if he want-1 redress, to apply to those Courts of Law with the working of which he was so familie-. In reply. Dr Kenealy passionately disclaimed the smallest reliance on the imoartiaHtv of those Courts, and protested aga’nst the “American rowdyism” that was bemg imported into the discussion. In conclusion he said he should shake] off the calumnies and prejudices th&t assailed him as the Don shook the dew off his mane, adding that he should so conduct himself in the House that no member need be ashamed of his companionship. It is hardly necessary to sav that after considering the complaint the House simply proceeded to the order of the day. It is possible that the admirers of Dr Kenealy may feel a little disappointed at their hero’s debut, for the conclusion of his speech is charac tcrised by a tameness that contrasts with the vigor of the expressions in recent issues of the Englishman.’ Thus, in regard to who Dr Kenealy is, we read—" A voice at which three judges trembled like aspen leaves, and that silenced in a sentence five opposing counsel, will be heard in tones making the Gothic Hall resound with the fearless advocacy of tiuth, justice, and Liberty, comparable to that of Chatham, when the torrent of eloquence rolled fiom his lips as a mighty river, diffusing life, and health, and joy, around to his dear and glorious country. Among scholars he stands in the forein.;t rank ;in all that constitutes true nobility second to none; profound in attainments of the law ; brave as a lion, but with a heart full of generosity, and tender impulses for the poor and the oppressed.” A Bill has been introduced into‘„the House of Commons, and has passed its second reading, which sanctions the principle of money payments for exchanges of commissions in the army. The question is strictly a party one, the Conservatives voting in a body for the Bill, and the Liberals as unanimously aga ; nst it. The objection urged is that it may operate as the thin end of the wedge to re-introduce the purchase of commissions ; whilst, on the other band, it is argued as essential to the welfare of the army, to allow exchanges, and that, when once granted, almost necessarily involves the sanction of payments for exchange. Though the second reading was carried by a majority of 97 the Liberals are persistent in opposing the Bill, and by way of ironical comment an amendment was proposed for extending the principle to non-commissioned officers and privates. The measure is almost certain to pass, but it is worthy of note that Mr Gladstone has given unmistakeable intimation that the Act will be rescinded when the majority of the House qf Commons passes to the Liberal side. The measure is generally characterised as reactionary, and the dominant party have firmly refused the concession of any safeguards that might be deemed to diminish its evil tendencies. It was proposed to limit the sum which might be paid for an exchange ; then it was moved that the provisions of the Act should not apply to officers whose commissions dated subsequent to the abolition of purchase. Both amendments were, (however, rejected by large majorities. The Conservatives are sure of carrying the measure, but it is another question whether they will strengthen their position thereby. It will be remembered what a commotion was caused some months back by the refusal of a Church of England clergyman to allow the erection of a tombstone which accorded to a Wesleyan minister the titles of “ Rev. ” and Minister.” In this action the clergyman was supported by his diocesan, the Bishop of Lincom; and the Wesleyan body, resenting the indignity, intimated that they should test the a^e °ring the case. In this position of affairs the vicar appears to have applied again to the Bishop for advice, and we find the latter replying—“l cannot recommend you to become a litigant in a lawsuit, concerning which the only thing that is certain is that it would involve you and yours in serious expenses. A heavy pressure is now put upon yon by a powerful body; in yielding to it, under protest, you will have the satisfaction of knowing that you have done your duty, and if the thing proposed to be done is wrong (as I believe it to 3e) the moral responsibility of it will rest with those who do the wrong, and not with those who suffer it.” The comments made upon this decision are scarcely complimentary. It is remarked that the Bishop appears to approve of persecution and insult when they can be indulged in gratuitously, though he is not prepared to recommend them when involving the outlay of money. Since writing the above complaint has been made of another act of fanatical bigotry. In the same church-yard where the daughter of Mr Keets was buried, there has been standing for the last forty or fifty years a grave-stone bearing an inscription, “ Sacred to the memory °f “ « who was a consistent Christian member of the Wesleyan body.” This stone, it appears, was placed at a distance of twelve inches, or thereabouts, from a wall, either of the church or of the churchyard, and this, we are now told, has been turned round by order of the vicar so as to present its face to the wall, and prevent the reading of the inscription. The presumption is that this act has been taken in revenge for the defeat in being compelled to l , e erection of the tombstone speaking of the Wesleyan minister as “ rev.” The Methodist body have taken up the case. It will doubtless be well ventilated, and the vicar compelled to restore the stone to its original position. The miserable fanatics who perpetrate ; these acts can have little idea of their real effect, which is simply to disgust many who are sincerely attached to the establishment, and to make its opponents more united and determined than ever.

The subscriptions towards the relief of the survivors of the ill-fated Cospatrick, and of the relatives of those who perished, have amounted t0L3,050. Of that sum L 2,700 has been distributed, and L 350 remains on hand. The committee gave LSOO to the two daughters of the captain, L 865 was distributed among the relatives of the crew, and the remainder was divided among the survivors and relatives of passengers.

The Pope’s recent Encyclical letter has led to very energetic steps indeed in Germany. It is intended to impose a test oath on all I > oman Catholics entering the Civil service whereby they will be required to declare explicitly whether they are prepared to obey the btate in the event of the civil and ecclesiastical authority coming into collision. A Bill has also been introduced into the legislature for the purpose of disendowing such members of the Roman Catholic clergy as do not make explicit profession of loyalty to the State. It is said, moreover, that the Government intends forcing the Roman Catholic Bishops “to declare whether they reoognke as binding the Pope’s Encyclical calling upon the people to disobey the laws, and that no answer, or an nnsatisfactory answer, is likely to be attended with immediate consequences.” The Government also contemplate reviving an ancient law by which all pastorals and missives relating to political subjects required the sanction of the authorities before publication. As yet none of the Roman Catholic bishops have published the Encyclical, and ten Catholic members of Parliament have published a protest against it. It is also stated that Bismarck has called the attention of the Government to the improper use which the Pope is making of his privileged position as a sovereign not amenable to the law. The rumors as to Bismarck’s intended resignation have ceased, and it is now stated that he will merely take six months’ leave of absence to recruit his health.

A tremendous sensation has been occasioned by an action brought by a Mr Charlton against •Sir John Henry and others. The defendants were gentiemen occuping high social standing, and had been induced to become directors of a certain oil wells company in Canada. Utterly misled by the representations of the designing proprietors, they purchased the property for an amount fabulously in excess of its real value, and the mis-statements and exaggerations were repeated in the prospectus they issued to the public. It was on this prospectus that the action arose, the plaintiff pleading that or, the faith of it he had been induced to invest his money, the whole of which, or nearly the whole, had been lost. The jury, being unable to agree, were ■ ischarged without a verdict, and it is_ not likely that the case will be tried again. The umming-up of the judge is very interesting. He expressed his opinion that the defendants could not be held nuty of deliberate fraud. If it was held that they came before the public saying, “ We make these statements upon the faith of these data, and we honestly believe in the genuine-

ness and truthfulness of these data,” then they would be entitled to a verdict if they honestly believed it at the time, even though that beh'ef might turn out not to have been well founded. The judge further said that whatever might be the verdict, he hoped that the case would operate as a warning to gentlemen of rank .and means not to lend their names to scheme i they were incompetent to appreciate. He also commented strongly on the reprehensible practice of accepting qualifications as director of companies from promoters, &c., remarking that the business of directors was to act as guardians of the shareholders’ interests, and that they placed themselves in a false position if they accepted gratuitous ’ allotments from promoters of schemes whose interests were frequently out of harmony with those of the company they promoted. It is hardly necessary to add that the verdict of the public coincides exactly with that of the judge, there being scarcely a newspaper that has not reprehended in the severest terms the practice which must be regarded as the original cause of the mischief.