Star. — London, England, 1824-03-02 00:00:00

~,,... . . P141.44 "/!.o " `"'i'lit;- 4 would now proceed to a detail of the facts. OnSatur day morning last he happened to be in the Court of Exchequer, when a Gentleman, of whose personal cheat racier writ honour he had the highest opinion, and about whose accuracy of statement he could n t doubt, Catialt up and addressed him, saying—" Mr. Abercromby, I have just heard a reply of the Lord _Chancellor's to what you said on Mr. Williams's Motion." He (Mr. Abereromby) inquired what that was? and was informed that his Lordship 11.4 d imputed to hint that. he had sent forth an utter falsehood to the Public. He (Mr. Aber cromby) then asked if the. Lord Chancellor might not intend someone else? and was told " No r because his Lordship had used the expression " some one with gowns on their backs," coupled with the imputation. — He (Mr. Abercromby) then repaired forthwith to Lin coln's Inn Hall, for the purpose of obtaining full infor mation on the subject. The first Counsel whom he met in the Hall !readdressed, but could not obtain much in formation from him. He then accidentally met a short hand ,writer, who voluntarily addressed him, saying "Mr. Abercrnmby, have you seen what the Lord Chan cellor has said this morning?" To which be answered in the negative. He then requested to be favoured with a copy rat the notes taken by the short-hand writer, and was refused. . However, he heard him read the report, and the passages " utter falsehood" and " the Gentlemen with gowns on their backs," were. in it,. and appeared to be interlined. .He (Mr. Abercromby).then begged tha the report might be read to another short-hand writer, who was present ; and the second short-hand writer de. dared that the report was correct, withtbeexception of one wcrJ, which was, that instead of ".utterfalsehood," it sho iIJ hive been, in his opinion, " another falsehood." -.41 - lear, /tear). But this inquiry did not rest here; for he .(Mr. Abercromby) subsequently saw a Gentleman of integrity and honour. When aliat Gentleman was made acquainted with what, he (Mr. Abercromby) had, learnt in the Court of Chancery, .he:replied that he would not positively say whether the.words"utter•falie hood".or H another falsehood" were used. Jilut,if it were ihe phrase "".another falsehood" was .the more ob. jaCtionable:in .kii•(Mr..4bercromlay's) opinion of the. two, because it implied that another talsebood-had been ntteted some time before. After an absence of about two hours, he again saw the Gentleman, in the Court o f Exchequer, to whom Irehad been indebted for the :first infot illation on the subject, and he said to him, " Are Ton sore that the word s e ' utter falsehood' were used the Lord Chancellor.?" " 01 that I entertain .no doubt, • Was the reply. lilt in the course of the argumeht„ t' did his Lordship :intend .me as Abe GentleinAn who had a gown on his back ?" infininedise iMr. Aber-. cyomby). I Ie was told that it c s OOlii"OCit apply to any person but himself, inasmuch as Aieitniy two Gentle men who wore gowns were the Honoprable andtearned Member for Winchelsea 4Mr. Brougham) and the Ho nourable and Learned Member who had ibrotkght for ward the motion (4r. Wittiams), neither.of whom:had made any observations to which A l e Lord Chancellor's remarks could apply. Ile t.Nfr. Abercrnmby) was not aware that the Lord Chancellor was entitled ,M any. consideration from Nina ; anclatter hp had satisfied hiin• self 'of the accuracy of the representation, he instantly concluded that he could not suffer the case to remain in silence—(Hear, /tear). lie requested a-friend, upon whose honour, integrity, and judgment he could rely, to wait on Lord Eldon, and tell him that he (Mr. Aber eromby) was sensible of the injustice 'a Melt was done and that he could not permit it to pass without observation; and if that friend did nut hear from him in the course of to-morrow (Sunday), he was . to go to his Lordship and state that it was his (Mr. Aber. tromby's) determination to complaiir of his Lordship's statement to that House—( Hear). He hard 110 doubt— as be did not alter his mind, and did *pot again.com rnunicate with his friend*that the Loi-d - Chancellor was made Rev:tinted with his determination. He (Mr. Abercromby) had now stated the means which be had ofestAini hing the truth of the words imputed to the Lord Chanceilor. They were very important, espe tially to him, and he was satisfied that they would con yey to other. the same meaning they did to him. He ilioUld now simply appeal to the House, if what was stated in the Newspapor report he held in his hand— and which appeared to him a correct copy of -that trltleisle had observed in the shorthand-writer's notes .....sriss)votan attack upon him as a Member of the use The Honourable Gentleman then read the following words, reported to have been uttered by the Lord Chancellor on Saturday last: • " AO it by been reproves:Wl that the person who sits here dopy Osage, jsy heariogeertain motions without the signature of Coon : - eel. that is to say, when motions have been made to discharge a5:41)1.4r of the Vice-Chancellor, or the Master of the tilts, that ach motions have brooght fin Witarnit the signitorp of Com pel, 1 have only to state, that having lieen in this Court liner the /ear 1778, whenever a motion has heal made before the Master ,tor l ips, which has refused to allow, or which be did allow, slid upon an application to the Chancellor to racy I N* the a)4ttr tlf the Rolls had done, or to destroy it alter:bee; and so again, whentyer a ;notion ba s been made before the Vice7eharicetvr and twat! kiav been of opinion that the motion had bien impreiwriv eritedur discharged, the party has always, in all those e l oses,§ten gellherty to asoye again, with a view to set the matter right*: and if the signature of Counsel be' necessary, to altei the praetife of tlre court; as it has obtained since the period 1 have nlentioped-- .gll I say is, thst I have not a right to tax the King's 'Soh ;tete in that way. with respect to appeals and rehearings, it is ,eppesed that I have beard them on pew evidence, and thereby . brouglit . discredit on some part of the Court--.-sr. ss Aa. ofrita I .4 ex steeei On rehearings, it is always couspeteut to read the evi dence slyer in the cause, though it was opt read'in the Court be low, ekber h the Counsel or the Judge--4uriliti than th;t, the Court does not go. On appeals, it only reads 10ra:this heel' read Os She Courts, below, and that practice ! have never arced 'froM in ane one instance. Therefore, really, before things are so represented. particularly. by Gentlemen with gowns on their back*, they shotild *least taltc care to be accurate, for itistletir business tobe so." —There was nothing said the Honourable Gentleman, in the course of business, which called for this observa tion from the Lord Chancellor; it must have been pre meditated by him. The Homiurable Member then said that Mr. Shsdwell remarked," Upon motions it would be impossible foi Counsel to certil . y." He (Mr. Aber arornby) then continued, that the Lord Chancellor said, Saeli motions as I have referred to have been made for lair a century, and never with the signature of Court-. *el; and yet the Public are told that the signature of Counsel is necessary by Act of Parliament, and that I hiie dispensed with it." It might be said, remarked the flonourable Gentleman, that there Was_ no mention ;Ode in the extracts which he had just read of either the • Rotise or of any individual. But he was persuaded, and if theLorcfCbaaiellor was here he could not deny I it' that the House was the place which his . Lordship Intended, and the individ,ual the Member whai was addressing chem.-Wear, Liar). If his Lordship were t h em b e w o il jd tell him so—(h_ (ear,. hear, hear.) — Who *was the trersan,kinted out by the tarrd Chancel. fot? The lionible Individual before the House. From what place had the attack proceeded? From the seat of justice in Lincoln's Inn Hall. Was it to be tolerated, -.:. . . vas it to be endured that o. Nein* of that Hos should be attacked from tbe seat ofjoltier,lor opium°, which he had fearlessly tittered in - 44am? He. ha, been,aecused of stating an" utter.falsehood." Would any one rise and say that he was not intended ? He trusted that no one would make. such an assertion. lio hoped, from what he had explained, that the Hottsewasi satisfied be was the individual alluded to by'Lord El-: don. If it were really true, or if, -not being true, 14 supposed he was pointed out by the Lord Chancellor', yet could he (Mr. Abercromby) tamely and basely sub' it rait without insisting upon an inquiry ? The -Hou se - could not too soon shut its doors against him; his gonna, could not be too soon stripped off his back, and he could, not be too soon degraded from the rank of a Gentle, man. But if it should be true that lie-was really charged with opinions and statements for the purpose of sending him forth o the Public as a degraded character, where, he would sk, would Members who should here.ifter he sum t re l opinions in that House find protettion?—; He begged to say, that. in what he had stated formerly, which gave rise to the Lord Chancellor's remarks, he should not relinquish or alter one word, if it would give to himself a complete triumph, and to the Lord 'Chan cellor the satisfaction of consigning him to infamy— ( Hear, hear).— He(Mr.Abercromby) could - not-state pre cisely the words which he had used in the course of that debate, but he recollected the substance of them. •He had stated, in the, first place, that the most important -object to which the Commission of linthiry.slioarld cli., rect its attention would lie the effects which the estab lishment of the Vice-Chancellor's Court had upon the Court of Chancery. This proposition gave the key to his future arguments. He had stated daft the appealt froth. the Viee-Chancery to the Chancellor's Coon ha* wanted . are aignasure of Counsel-from 1813 to 'lBl9 4 and-he had argued this circumstance as the cause of the increase of those appeals. He :had then alluded. to an objection _which had been taken at the time of treat ..ieg theVie.e-Chancery Court, that .by flie.inttitaition Of : that .Court, parties would often he .subjected toisio hearings in the,same cause, and, what was worse, bat , Aber sV.4 4 ",e.tiot always decided on the same evidence, for the Lord:Chancellor allowed the, cause to be. heard on .an amended case with fresh evidence, which wasagreat ;hardship, as it often led to a reversal of the decision in the, Viee-Chancery Court; thus very isnpropetly im peaching thecharac ter and nuthority,oftbeinferiorJudgel Much of this grievance he (Mr.:Aberctomby.) had at-, aributed to the want -of Counsel's signature to •the -ap peals, fordisappninted suitors had,often *rushed precipi: caret', „in the, heat,of the moment, from one Court to another, without the advice -of their Counsel. This, he declared, was the substance of what he had spoken .in' the House. What bad the Lord Chancellor said? He! had said that it had been the invariable practice of the' Court since IV'llB, whenever .a motion had been made: before the Vice-Cliancellbr, and Counsel had been of opi 7 nion that the motion had been improperly 1,-ranted or' discharged, the party had plwaii, in all thosicases been' at liberty tomoee again stith ;terve/ to set the matter tight. ! " So said the Lord Chancellor "so "s aid I," said Mr. Abercrbmby, "and it wet-for this very'reason that-i made theakjectionr , -an objection which is now substantiated by the Lord -Chancellor himself." But his Lordship, in order to bring discredit on .his (Mr. Abercrombea) feeble argument, had alluded to the practice which pre; vaned before the establishment of the Vice-Chancery Court. The Lord Chancellor had said, that " when aver a motion had been made before the Master of the' Rolls which Ire had refused, to allow, or which he did allow , and upon an application to the Chancellor to ,eary whaCtlie Mai,ter of the Rolls had done,'ur to de-- s troy it altogether;' dais wias the same case As a motion' .brought before him . troth the Vice-Chancellor. .lie (Mr. Abercromb;rwirufdappeal to his Honourableand Learned Friend, the Solicitor-General, it, before the es tablishment of the . ice,Chaecer y Court, it was the duty . of the Master to hear special motions? He had no doubt of an answer in the negative ; and he would look for `a similar one to the question, if it were not -true' that the Vice-Chaincellor beard a large prof ortion of the special motions which were argued in the Court. of Chancery ? Then what consistency was there in liken ing the Mater to the Vice-Chancellor ; and he would ask if this were not of itself a fit subject for imp ir y? ; As to the hearings of frebli evidence ion nwtions,he I would again appeal to his Honourable and Learned I Friend if - motions which came before the Vice-Chan cellor on otsc r.ate ef facts were not argoed no a, ne al state of facts before the Lord Chancellor ?—r.Thrtos,tt CITOR-GINIRAL . was understood to signify his assent across the tabtel—That this re-hearing was deregateiy to the inferior Judge, no one could dispute, ao4' th t tt lc created Inutecessary delay and expense waneritlajle ill-. disputable. How, then, stood the facts? . The-Lord Chancellor hid ;Omitted that he (Mr..itherevOurby) was correct in saying that the motions .iy'er'e heard svith;- out the signature of Counsel. His Lordship.. bad. soidr that li the Public were told that the signature ofConnsel was necessary by /set of Parliament." This assertion was false, lqr he ( 4'(r. iitberctontio) had never made such a statement. And as to the appeals. ea (trill evi dence, what he had said wasarrite the reverse , from what his Lordship had imputed to him—(Fleer, hear). ~The Lord Chancellor then had put into his (Mr. Abercrcunby's) mouth, not only what he did not say, but the very reverse from what he had said-,(licar). These were the facts; but were there no aggravations? Where did Lord Eldon uner the.,e rout calumnies? In the seat of jndgment I Was he (Nlr.Aborcrornby) pre sent ? Was any notice screed on him? dad' were they not uttered before persons,• ter be lost in whose opinion would, if . he had oat a farthing to depend on bit hi prolessipn, have ruined him for ever ?--,(lfearoicer). it , was uttered before the people of England, in the pre sence of those persons whose duty it was to repent the:; Iproceedings of the Court to the Public. Bat even had: he been present, he must have held his tongue. Laid Eldon, in his exalted seat, would have checked mil, explanation, for he had the power Of doing so. What a spectacle was this to exhibit ! A humble individual, whose character had been so flagrantly iakpeecbeg , obliged to writhe under the lash without being. eretoit ted to offer a few - words in excuVatiort. The Lard Chancellor had impeted to him want Of caution. Ho could this be made out? He (Mr;Abeicrointri) had risen in that:House, in the presence of his ecivals and thoseabove him, where, had he uttered anything rash or imprudent,he would immedia e telf have been pnt to shame—(Near). lime had heard a great deal Of tbe..de-i lays of the Court of C hancery . •It - laad been. wild .that Lord Eldon Was amiable, *as . sensitive—Weer, heari sensitive- H ear, —and • that he deeply regretter tlii t0009,011M t 4 which these. delays ltd. But what' ciirelil bii Obught of the conduct of :hie Lordship, , who Ind Peßaotkeeedi from his' seat of justice, an, anathema open a head* individual, who, in the discharge of his public duties, had said something which might be disagreeable to him? - • . . . Then-there-was no roo t* . for tenths% or hesitation i - Zise ' . Lord - Eldon decitleer imtliatatlkly: Bur be (Ms, AltirteOroby) would ask,-from who in' did his-Liwilship rte his information ? •Was it from his Honourable end:'Learned Friends the . Attorney or Solicitor-430c 1el ; or from his, HonnuraWe, Filene's the Member for seter, or' the Member, for Winchelsee? Would it be said that any of these Honourable Gentlemen had fur nished him with the information ? But whether .they' had or had not, what right had the Lord Chancellor of England, in his seat of justice, to comment on the de► batesf that House?—(Hear, hear.) 'Whence did he obtain that precedent? Was it true that an individual Meaiber of that House was to be snblectto the risk of having his sentiments made the instrument of his-de.: gradatign by a Lord Chancellor the morning after he had delivered them ? Was it to be endured that suth; Members were-to he at the caprice of any Judge? And if - such Member should happen to belong to the professl sion of the law s was he liable to be denounced unheardl.l and thus not only might he be deprived of his honer exertions, and have Iris career of - professional respec t bility checked, bat be might be branded with an ei•ith which no Gentleman Could bear—(Hear, hear). This was certainly tyrannical and despotic; for what .cohld be esteemed greater tyranny and despotism than leaving. the Members of that House to submit themselves to the centrnul.nla Judge, and thus destroy all freedom of debate? If Lord.Bldin can . estinguish any man in thii . summa4 . Manner, where were the privileges of ' the 'House-- - where Was the .security of the Members ? It was fit therefore that - this subject should begraveh in vestigated ; and if the facts were proved, it 'was incum, bent on the ; House to take decisive stepi in order to se cure the usefulttesa; the independence, and the spirit of the English Jar. -For if it were passed over in . selence; all these qutirtties would he lost ; and if they had not, like him, t'..e pistier of stating their complaints before the gnus*, the 'Lear would be prostrate, at the 'feet of Lord 'Eldon, As the case stood, he considered that he 'shottld have disgraceehrim.elf and the Bar had he not brought it forward. The 'Honouttbk Gentleman con-. -eluded . with 'miring that 'Mr. learqnharsim, the.short fiend _writer, ,attend the House to-morrow, -in order , ui fern's') a report Of the 'sentiments delivered in-Court by the Lord Chancellor - on Saturday. Mr. Seeritary-CAWNING;-.-illere is. no man- who: heard the Hommiable and tear ned 'Gent leinari% speech,. no member of the profession to which he belongs, no one of the friends by whom he is surrounded, wh , makes more allowance than '1 do for the feelings which he has evinced, or renders a more sincere tribute of ,praise for the moderation and propriety with which he has•exptessed cheat. He has displayed an anxiety that is creditable to him, to irceltims& from an imputation . which, as 'far as my testimony goes, be is not subject .to.; for, .without ; being ennugh of a professional man tobe,awaiethosortglity of the kmportairce of the dis tinction between what lie stated the other night, and :what he ehesebere ss as understood to have stated, 1 can most unequivocally state, that in his argument.-shat :night, the impies.iion on my mind was, that he did pot so put of his way to throw imputations on the Lord Chancellnr, or. to tiankewhat has happened in the Court of Chancery, matter of individual blame, not the limit of a faulty systein—( fiear, - hear, hear). That was the impression an my mind ; and if my te s timony had been required . , l should hare been as ready to state elsewhere, as I have been to state here, that there was nothing tit tered by the Honourable and Learned .Member on that ( occasion 'which went beyond the fair line of discussion, pc -which could .3isstifiably furnish a ground apersonal maim*, • itlJasittii% this, Sir, I can feel also .that the 'Honourable and De:oiled Gentleman, strong in the re (collection of his ,purpose at the time, and of his mode rireaccittrng that purpose, could not have,avoideetfeeh., lieg surprise and indignation •at finding Isis seta, !stomped with terms of so gross. a. character as those. ;which have' been applied to it. But, Sir, in his trate- . :went to the Ilouse, the :Honourable and Learned gen , cleinan has dropped One link of the transaction; he has dropped the consideration whether what be said justi fiably was repo: ted correctly to the Lord Chancellor, as if there could be nothing in the channel in which what was said here was conveyed to the Noble Lord, which mi.& have perverted its meaning—(Heer).— , , Here itiptin, its en unlearned person, I must remark, that ' I em trot capable of discriminating the difference be-' tween what has been reported, and what the Honour alile and Learned Gentleman actually said; but those Fen whose knowiede of the subject I folly rely, assure me, that while in die speech actually made by' the Ho nOttrisfile and Lamed. Oileileaula, theta Ums.ncithiug of which the Lead Cheattelltki could justly complain ; yet, in;filit milk COnee/ed to the . Noble Lord, there Areas thakcerinur given to the liononrahle and Learned Gen fleirian's obbervations, which, though not materially diffesent to an unprofessional eye, was false and incdr nit. end calculated to excite in the breast of the Judge to whom they referred, the same feeling of indignation for which he had made a not less generous allowance, When manifested by the Hon. and Learned Gentleman. Viliat then, Sir,-is the conclusion to whiCh the Honour-, able and Learned Gentleman comes at last? That whatever is said here, and misrepresented elsewhere, 4ffectintany person high or low, the person against *hors it is directed must put tip with it quiet and note istingly.? 'Sr, it there be any fault in what has-hap pened, the fault is in our own practice, or rather in our Own connivance ';a fault I der not indicate with any wish tosee corrected ; a fault Which has produced incalcula ble benefits tothe country, but.which, amidst all its ad-: vantages; Ireitthls inconvenience, that when the charac ters of individttels are under discussion here, the small eat variation e the most unintentional misrepresentation of what is here uttered may barrow up the feelings of the, justest man in the country, by the imputatioh of prin-' CiPleS.Ot tikOies Which he has abhorred—(Hear). — no Hode o rahle . and Learned Gentleman has said, that a Judge &mild take no cognizance of what 'is said of him here. • Whet ! is it of no consequence that in Courts in which a Judge administers justice, he should be known to Sit with. lean hands? or is it unnatural thit he should be anxious to refute before-those who are the best judges of their truth or falsehood, the imputations which he May suppose have been levelled at him ?-.--- The Honnurable aid Learned Gentleman will acquit me of thiecharge.of contending, that, either on- this ot on any othereeeasinti, a - Sedge should discharge his duty to himself .withotst rearence to hi s duty towardsothets; .or that he ihnild.tstake observations on statements, of Abe authenticity of szhieh.he it not Satisfied c• as:reudilTa '1 am sure,. will he aequitlis of the idea of sheltering ;rnacsolf Studer the tethaica3fty of denying, that whet was sltalby the bird . C4aiii.e.gbi had reference to what owed in Alas .iiiinau. But it hadnat reference to 14'1 'am sure, in the sense whicbthetionourable.and Learned Gentleman attributed to it—not in the sense of a great Officer of the Crown attempting to intimidate a Mcm- - S.-.. - . iiiara ~~. ut.A ~3~n 11 1 ,tier. of tbe house of Comm t —/) et of in individ ua l, feeling, perhaps, too sensibly for his character, after a r public lite of great merit, and of whoM it might be said, that he wore his heart upon his sleeve, "For daws to peek at"— and dreaded too much every trifling attack, ac striking -at the 'inflect his reputation. It is a fault to he so sen sitive—it is a fault in a public man—but it will he hard on public men, that it should be'so severely visit e d Iy the Honourable and LeariiiiMissisiiso propoies ; for, I am sure, that. the-cow:alas plate oat r eatt lead us to lit, Ile less than an accireation-of the most serious kind. .1 :certainly w ish that. a dife,rent course bad been taken by the Noble Lord, and that in the time that elapsed tweet; the debate in thieficrise, and the end of the we e p hehad recurred.to,cflter teitiniony;:whicit might hare set him right as to Elie wordsactrialkotteted by the H ow and Learned Gentleman—laferii,.fronts Me Opposilioni: That it is to be regretted that the IltAleLord hadt reft . lected this precaution, I admit, isn't that he - could treat. sure up the mistatement to take an opportintity of w re::k. ing his vengeance or. an individual, is what no man would believe of another, and what any one who know s the . charactertif the Noble Lord will not dream of at .tributing to hini—Vire 'Bor.:extern-Gen en A L here whilpered to Mr. Cairn:lc:n- 4 .1 hare made this Miser. supposintit to-tie - tree that the Lord Chancellor had seen the 'reported obser"ations of . the Honourable and Learned Gentleman soon' afrer they were tittered ; but my Hononrable and Learned 4 Frieitd, w o i s ac quainted with the fact,Aells: me • that the paper contain. ing the expression 'attributed to the Honourable and iLearnedGentlerran i•as 13of into the hand of the Lott! *Chancellor only;on 'satur t iabi t irAing, at the motw-:. - his.going info COurt. Then v `Kroire the 11: , nouta')10. and Learned Genikinan, -and•the •Losd Chancellor, 5(1 situated 'that 'the eliaracterof •theinte or 'of the other must suffer Heat-At/Z/1. There is,it appeals to m e , all intermediate "path. 'What the Whoitrable and Learned Gentleman said could 'not • jiistly have given offimee, While in that mi4el,resentatron, not wilful, and not in excusable, of' the Honotn=able and Learned Gentletrau's onselration, is to be found a justification of the warmth of the Noble 'Lord—(clear). • crbe Honourable and Learned Gentleman' l/as vindicated 'himself in the face of the House and of-the country, and it will appear in 'him somewhat approaching to the temper which helm atttibutea to the LOrd.Chancollor; if he press hi., mu- a . ; and I see no motive which need preclude him from receiving the best and ninsrsubstantial s AO-ac tion, in the assurance that what hr teally did did if aoi excite the feelings which the misrepresent ~ r+o of :what he did say has led to the espiession of—we er , shear).. Sir, with theseieelingi, atid to prevent thec rn. : mencement of a prootedivg, the termination of which we cannot anticipate,and wstirthefullest admission that -the Honourable and Learned Gentleman has set hia,,elf entirely right, I-take the liberty to oppose his motion. Mr.'DROUGELAM said, that healid.not rise to vindi cate the character of -his Honottrable Friend, tor that :object had 'been attained by the defence of the Right Honourable Secretary—a defence the candour of which was great, the fairne.s unquestionable; and, c• nsidering the character of theaclient .aita was :deft n feJ, va.tly moderate. That defence, indeed, #a ; def.-rice at all ; for in it there was an admission of a.he,:wirole of the ',charge, or, at least, a submissive evenuation or it. But he rose Do remind thaffonseahat there was a third party involved—( Hear,. henr)—a . parry who, he -begged par don of his Honourable Friend, was mere nearly and deeply concerned—he meant the liouse'of Parliament — (Loud cries of ,klear i front the •Oppestiliatt 4eackes)- 13esities; the sharacter of his lionoutahle friend never WAS in jeaparaly awn those who Away him, and the shade of a shadow had never obscured its brightness. It was the higher irstereat of -the privileges of the House to >which he (Mr. Brougham) tam Looked—those privi leges which wetted to exist onlyto he laughed at, and which had been autctsafally irwailed in rimy instances, and grcps sly perverted in-mints; and there was now a chance of their being employea td aid the powerful against the weak--(Cries of Flear,ll on: the Opposition). Let the Editor of a Newspaper have written what he might—let the Reporters of debates have put forth a questionable report, or made comments on the &scan sion, all this could not now screen the Lord Chancellor. It had been said that his Lordship had given way to his feelings in a moment of irritation—that he had been too hasty ; and the Right HornsurableSerretary had re quested the House not to press the matter _ farther.— gs Don't," sap he, 4 4 %big the ease to a vote, for.his Lordship is sensitive, and if 'he has sianed, it has beers from the escess of fuse feeling ; And if. be had waited forty-eight hours be might not have made any remarks because there would have been no grounds for them" —(Hear, and - laughing). This, in his (Mr. Orpogbasa's) opinion, had nothing to do with the question before the House. • The question was—the ..Lord• Chancellor ,has admitted himself in the wrong, and theae could be no doubt that he grossly violated the privileges of Parlia- Intent. He (Mr. Brougham) re6embered that an indi vidual had been punished by a quibble on a section in the Bill of Rights, by which it is enacted, that no Nep ber of Parliament shall be questioned for yihat he' says in the House; but then he was not an illustrious and distinguished personage---he was not a man in high office, and backed by the Crown—he was an humble individual, Mr. Gale Jones, who had been sent to prison for placarding a notice that the conduct of a certain Member of Parliament would be discussed at a spout ing club. But there was certainly this essential diver mice between the two cases, Mr. Jones was not in Court -or in power ; he did not question, he did not read other reports; be did not take time to inquire; he did not allow a Saturday and a Sunday to elapse without an atonement. The Lord Chancellor passed sentence without tittestion; and carried his sentence into immediate itecition. With the Lord Chancellor's motives or intentibas he (Nr. Brougham) had nothing do; it wa the tendency of what he uttered to Which the attention of the House should be directed. He would put it to any one within these walls, if a member of the profession, who had a seat in the House, could now stand up in the fearless discharge sof his Ay, if the. Head of -the Court where he practised, and from which he derived the subsistence of himself and Iris family—if that Judge could pass sentence upon him, the effect of which would be to ex clude him from-farther practice in his profession, and to destroy the well-earned rewards of his professional life, and so far as lay in the power of that Judge, to exclude him' from that profession ,for ever—lie (Mr. Brougham) put no hypothetical case; such a practice ;would produce these effects, and might haveproduced 'them in the present instance. fie had no hesitation in 'saying that the language of the Lord Chancellor was a gross and flagrant -violation of the privileges of the louse; and as his Honourable Friend had stated his case, and the defence had admitted that mist unjudi c ial capability of raslines.s—t !lean and laughter)—A de- • 10 IL - ~~d its character, se a lsse f otd t ow e s: r eeenblit ; s t k,... s - ciiii Ill at of i his sleeve, d:o e tri i ' is g tiw nth t ai a h ec 6 fe t o a t ia f :a e rihun c ia i k tdit t e. ii , t t eao. i a l n itaih : s l eist: s ii i g t v ri ihci k t : n ab : : see 1 ' ktl9 l (A 0 ' Pa t i' —but it will he hut if tli io Severely visited 4 unii slim proposes ; for,/ bar whs raost serious k ind. .i r:'::::: e m n ig t t k it en h: T ve . 1 on mil sistA iial lynttet ed by the flow log front . Me Oppositi on): tha lqe6le . Lord h a dt n i. g . arst it that he - could treat. .rev opportatity of wre.:k. Vale nal, is what no man the it any one who knows tha will not dream of at- Cb ntOft-Gart if A L here oth hare made this obser- . we! t the Lord Chancelicr Ch is 'of 'the Honourable he et they were tittered ; iPe &Friend, wo i s ac . m e rat the pape cjcamain. not the Honoutable and A tti the hand of the Lon! :.....1 *ing, at the mottle- ~.. the roire the 1 - I: , noula')lc Pia •Losd Chancellor, u the time or , iif the ot h er he, . . isot appeals to m e , all P" , htiiirable and Learned tics y ltirce given offilnee, tclt sot wilful, and not ir.- sq Learned Gentletrau's can fication of the warmth th The Honourable and i 3 ec 'himself in the face Si , and it will appear in to e temper which he has of tr.; if he press hi.. me. Sill :11 need preclude hint IA Ist' substantial s lilac- sin he really did .'ay did is, e inisrepreserit ,i • W If co espiessirm rrf—t I lerrr, tie lid so prevent the c re. II e . termination of V. hi t t rfulkst admission that title man has set hi :it,ell ..... to oppose his motion. ltd hewlid.not rise to vindi- cv Irable Friend, for that in .! defence of the Right It! e the candour of which is iablel and, c. nsidering Or was:deft n fed, va.tly ti bras no defoice at all ; a of jie t .witole of the pQ ettenuation or it. But w' : there was a third party so who, lee -begged par- an was mere nearly and di House'of Parliament— fie O aouta pposi hle k'ri litm 4 end n ever bto,koray him, :and the cured its brightness. ! t sh eivileges of the House nC , w looked—these privi- si rto he lattglied at, and to ailed in many instances, 31 t; and there was now I yea td aid the powerful tr,lioin the Opposition). di have written what he ity Ars have put forth a a rmmenrs on the discus- Ii in the Lord Chancellor. 6 ip had given way to his ar on—that he had been al 'rattle Secretary had re- a the Matter _ farther.— n ease to a vote, for.his C has sinned, it has been • T.' ; and if, be bad waited a lave made any remarks b 1 no grounds for them" in his (Mr. Orpnbasa's) t the question before the 4 : :Lord • Chancellor ,h as 1 and thege could be no I he privileges of Parlia- a membered that an indi- 1 quibble on a section in I s =meted, that no klem- . t ;timed for what he' says I not an illustrio u s and as not a man in high vu—he, was an humble had been sent to prison to conduct of a certain to discu s sed at a spout. . my this essential diver- . Jones was not in Coast )n, he did not read other squire; he did not :Moira. without an atonement. Itence without Sittestion; D immediate itecition. totives or intentikasss he lo; it was 'the tendency e emotion of the House put it to any one within to profession, who had a stand up in the fearless .. 'ead of .the Court where le derived the subsistence that Judge could pass if which would be to ex- • :e in his pitifession, and 'ands of his professional rower of that Judge, to :ssion for ever—lie (Mr. al case;, such a practice . nd might have, produced He had no hesitation in e Lord Chancellor was a of the privileges of the • le Friend had stated his • _ mined that ottst unjudi- • rear ; and laughtcr)—a. de- . • . ‘ 1 , . - .z 1 11P :~ U !I!