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

chive its ?bust be 'taken by Parliament in order to pd ts dignity. He knew, bbetasier; the ifincririon rar r t he House too well , Mind he had lived too long to, see co m my of its privileges invaded with impunity, to ' t ow that the present corn slcsint would •be crushed--. ina ratur of Na, no.) He was afraid that his antici • n f ations woul be realized ; but he could only say , that t halonse permitted this breach of privilege to pass unno ticed, it could oar with any consistence call to its i i ; , n ar in future any Printers or Conductors of Newspapers, b at ever their misdemeanours Might am ount to (Hear). l The SOLICITOR GENERAL said, it was admitted o n a ll hands that the speech of his Honourable a nd • L e arned Friend hid not been correctly reported ; and reported as .it was to the Lord Chancellor, what must, have been his feelings? what would have 'seen the feel ings of his Honourable and Learned Friend had he been charged with a violation of the. law, •as his Lordship was in this report of the speech of hiS Honourable and Learned Friend, in the Paper in question.—tlhe Ho noerable and Leirned Gentleman here referred to'', the report alluded to, which stated in substance that caseslby way of Appeal were heard before the Lord Chancellor upon new affidavits.) —Could any dodge be otherwise than irritated at this? Not a syllable of what was here stated was true, though it imputed to the Lord Chancellor the breach of an Act of Parliament. When he (the Solicitor-General) first saw the repoit of the speech of his Honourable and Learned Friend, he ins xnediiaely observed that he doubted whether his 1 : 10- f nourable and Learned Friend ever said what was there attributed to him—( Cheers front Me Opposition Benches): —He perfectly understood the meaning of those , cheers, and would notice them presently. The coma plaint of his Honourable and Learned Friend, on the former occasion, was that the Lord Chancellor, heard, with too great facility, cases which 'had. been previously heard by the Vice-Chancellor. -It was - known that the Vice-Chancellor had himself made a tepresetia tation to the Lord Chancellor on the subject ; and had, s uggested to him the propriety of not heat ing motions,; unless the Counsel making them assured his Lordship, that they had not been previously made before him (ihe Vice-Chancellor). The Lord Chancellor, in answer, said, he had no power to pievent any such motions, ortta exact such an ass u rance ft om any Counsel on the making: of a motion. With regard to the expressions u-ed by the Leird Chancellor respecting his Honourable and Learned 'Friend,. they amounted to this, that his Hon.' and Learoed Friend had appropriated to himself what, in fact, had never been meant for him. He, therefore,, concurred in the cheers'given by the Honourable Gen tlemen opposite, when he expressed his doubt of his Honourable and Learned Friend ever having stated what he' was reported to have stated. He (the Solicitor- General) had therefore exculpated the Lord Chancellor --(Cries of " So, no," from the Ofiposition). Undoubt-, edly, Honourable Gentlemen would come to their own conclusions on the subject. though he entirely concurred in the general remarks, : that no Judge ought to be 'al lowed to attack the Bar—( /Icor). He would never' assist in•such an attack ; he would not turn to the tight or the left ler any man, however high Might be his station. Ilis Lordship, however, bad not.spolsea against: hi s Honourable and Learned "Friend ; but against the paper he held in his baud. He (the Solicitor-General) was therefore justified in saying, that it was not a per sonal censure on his Ironourable and Learned Friend; and was also justified as a consequence, in absolving the Lord Chancellor from all charge of intentional Of: fence. Bat a man must be apathetic indeed who did not express himself strongly against a false imputation, as had been done by the Lord Chancellor, whose answer was purely hypothetical.. His Lordship *tad mithave shewn himself possessed of becoming firmness it he Lad not repelled the attack upon him ; though, in his re sistance of that attack, he alluded to the misrepieenta tion made of the speech of the Honourable and,,Learned Member_ for Caine, and not to the Houourafile and learned Member himself. Mr. SCA RLETT felt that he should not be doing his duty to the House of Commons, or to the profession tp which he had the honour to belong, if' he were to give a silent vote upon the present occasion. The speech of his Honourable and Learned Friend (the SnlititOr‘Ge• aeral) did him honour. Ile stated manfully, were Mto read in the newspapers the report of his liisnourable and Learned Friend's (Mr. Abercromby) speech, be' wotild immediately set it down as erroneous; hil -Ho nourable Friend seemed to doubt it more than the Lord Chancellor himself. It seas, therefore, no more than, reasonable that, before the Noble Lord did that which was. unparalleled with respect to the Bar, he should have taken care to have all his doubts removed (dear): But if the Lord Chancellor did not intend an attack upon his Honourable and Learned Friend (Mr. Aber crOmby), but upon the report of the speech imputed to what could have been more easy thin to have said" so at die time? (Hear, hear.)—There were many modes in which that explanation could have been conveyed. }'le should be glad to know why, the Lord Chancellor, sot anythin g reported to be said of him by any person . in that House, should proceed to comment upon that person . a —avonldany man say that in so doing the Lord Chancellor had riot beets guilty of the grossest viola of the privileges of that House ? —(Cheers ) proceedings should be instituted against such Mein for such expression by any process, would any ionourable Gentleman say that such proceeding would a gross violation of their privileges? If, then, the' Chancellor Could hot attack the person 9r the pro. /.of a Member of that House without a breach of alege, was it to be endured that he should direct his against the feelings and the professional characH such individual ?—(Near). lie (Mr. Scaelett) rather be sent to prison; he would rather be :ed of his fortune, he would- rather be stripped I gown, than be called a liar from the judg sertt•—efie'ar, hear, hear). He would put another """iiall—Suppese that on conviction of having uttered aoss f.'hehood of an individual in the House of Coos a nauestesereed to have the gown stripped off his if an iadividisal deserved to be thus. treated, how mote culpableseas that attack which was directed a their privileges in a Manner rendered more etate, • violent, and Clore strong, because done by the Chancelbir of' Bugland ? It had been said, he not whether - o%ly qt.raltly, that the Bar of Eng is in a degraded state. He would not enter.itito ruestiona Mahe would declare that no step ecalsl l :en so strongly calculated to degrade it as for .the ChancellOsa or .a Judge presiding' in a Cuttai of :e, where no person dare. answer him, to attack an; idual, and - deprive bins of all r espectability, lainprofessional or other respect, by stating_ irat uttered4alvehoods . --(gthir, hear, hear). — Id the ifouse visit its vengeance an . interior. ler for the violittioit . of privilege, and would its :ar to vis i t the offender in the present instance be- y 4 : • *• an whic shoe lot anyi :u that person,. Chancel tion of If prose ber for ilonour not be ; Lord CI petty .01 privileg attack ; ter of • would strippe r of his ment si qiiestio gross mons, ; back; i much r against niore v • Lord C knew n . land is that qu be take Lord C Justic, individ all clai - that tie Would oicode is ta:tcar cause he was the tord chineellof of England ?. If hi knew anything:of_ the irtiSfileges'":o thit ttoiii; he knew that no individual ia:this although having at his disposal more patronage, possessing more power than any other, who filled the highest station in thr State, who enjoyed the utmost of dignity idd honour,. should be permitted to attack a Member* of that House, who, as compared with. the Lord Chancellor, must be termed an humble individual: Was it to be endured that the Lord Chancellor was to pounce upon that indi vidual, and to pour upon him the vial of his wrath, be cause' he had read in the Newspapers the report of a speech imputed to that individual ?...(Hear, hedr)—lf a Judge in any other Court had ventured to make such a declaration as that or the Noble Lord, would not the House feel indignant? Why should silence then be preserved becaase the offending individual was the . I f ord Chancellor? Was it fear of that Noble Lord ;which infininced the House? Why should not the :House then act as it would with an Unhappy printer? Suppose the Lord Chancellor had thought and declared' that something uttered by a Member of that House of him was false, was, there any reason why that person should not be supported and defended? There was a donbt that thb individual pointed at was his (W. Scatlett's) -Honourable and Learned Friend (Mr. Abercromby).— 'His Honourable and Learned Friend had that night de clared that he had not made those statements which had provoked the anger of the Noble Lord. This was not' a question in Which the character the Noble Lord was involved. Was it because a Member in tkat House should speak 'his sentiments, even though he might be -in - error, that he was to be liable to attack for such a discharge'of his duty ? Why should he not state than he thought to be trite, wi t h o Ut r e s pe c t to persons? Tor his own part, he disclaithed all inteOthin - of reflect, ing upon the Lord Chancellor. He had never expe 'rienced.from that Noble Lord anything 'but civility and condescension; and he only rote upon the present occa -Ision, because he never recollected it case in which so imperious a - necessity existed forassettiaithe privileges .of that House. The ATTORNEY-GENERAIL , said, if he were asked what was the impression Upon - his mind on the'itibject, he should declare 'his conviction that. the .N able Lord had no intention to attack, but to defend himielf against unfounded charges that hadbeen brought against him. lie would call upon all those:who could-feel,, to con• cider, when such charges were circulated - ;hrongh out, the country, What must be the feelings: - arid, what the situation of .the Noble Lord? .-..chatge was contained in a speech said. to have beenfuttored. on' rpesday night ;- it was Published, on WedlteldafAhand 'it went to say that the Lord 'Chancellor 'was guilty . of an attempt to elevate - himself at the expense of the cha racter of 'another Judge, who sat with him in the sime , WltainVire gifting charge could be Made against. 'such - an eialted in dividual? WIZe. was that 'cliargi asserted 'to have been made? Within the walk nf Par liament;and that Charge ' in that state, was circulated throughout thectitintry.... Whit was the situation 'of the individual thus charged? Did his Hanotiratie: arid. Learned Friend {Mr. Abercromby) come down to the House 'and complain of the misrepresentation of his speech, in which he was *Made to charge the'NOble and Learned Lord with the offences alreidy - mentioned?. (Hear, hear).—.l34) his Honourable and Learned Frieod come down to that House and complain Of those - libels .which had been put into ,his mcuth ; and not having thine io, was the Noble and Learned Lord trot . to--feel an honest indignatiOn on reading, for the first 'time, the offensive article? . And, holding the paper in his hand, - was he not to be sulFered to allude to , the paper itself ?-,-Iflear, heel.).—'What the Noble Lord had said upon that occasion was no a~pptied _ tdliis ' Honourable and Learned . Friend, Anitlo,, those charges so falsely brought fOrward againstlins-i4Hear, jeers*).—He had followed hii Honourable and Learned Friend through his speech on the ottadoy referred to, and although his Ilonourable Friend bad'expressed'himself with accuracy and - distinctness. os him and other lawyers, .yet it was possible that :Orson! net equally acquainted Stith-tech nicalities might have misunderstood hirk; for'be Attorney-General) masperfecdy satisfied that the of- fensive article was the result of. erior s .and not of design. When his Noble and' Learned • Friend saw that misre presentation of his conduct, be expressed himself; he admitted unguardedly,, with warmth. Holding, at that moment, the Newspaper in his hand, he: bad- expressed his indignation - but every person who heard him, felt .that the NobleLordhad applied himself to it; and not to his Honourable and Learned Friend—(Hear; hear). -Should-the Houie not atial tbatesplanation sufficient, 'he felt capable of going fuither. He was sure,. when, the House should confider the situation of his WOO., able and Learned Friend, when the House shOUldCson , sider the nature of the charges, that he had pervertid the law, and thatAt had so perverted-the law for base purposes, wAs it too moth for hint to expect that some consideration and indulgence would be extended to him for having given' vent to his feelings, when he first.saVr thOse false statements? He was not speaking of the period when the publication of the - proceedings of that House was prohibited, but of 'the pres ent ti - me, when they goforth to the world , and are every day detailed— was. it to be permitted, therefore, that misrepresenta tions should be put into the mouth of an Honourable Member, and suffered to 'pas, with impunity ? The House should be guarded, however, when vindicating its privileges. With reference to an observation of .his Honourable and Learned Friend (Mr. Scarletr) as to the degraded state of the might venture to say, that at no period in the history of this country; did ' the Bar enjoy moreindepeidence or . more fteedoin:ot debate—( Hear, hear). When he first read the report of his Honourable said Learned Friend's speech; he felt convinced that it Was ineOract. The report contained a charge of a most criminal nature against the Lord Chancellor; and if that Noble and ,Learned -Lord had expressed himself warmly upon it, he (the Attorney= General) was stare the House would not e xpress itself too warmly upon what fell from the Noble Lord under those circumstances upon that oceasion—(Hear, hear). Mr. scARLErr.-4 did not. state it as my opinion that the Bar was in a degraded state. 14'4 not say so, nor do Itlrink.so . ; but I will say' this, that the: honour and independence of the Bar are owing solely to its' *wn Mr. Tlgasgy should have considered himself di's-• graced were,fie-par . give a silent vote on the'present oc casion. His Hon. and. Learned Friend had come down to that Rouse and natal' that the Noble Lord - had at tacked .hirn (hia Hon. .Psfead), and, not satisfied' with. that, but that he to in gloss and.caumnious terms. The words use d lig the Noble and Learned Lord could . not be justified by' anything that had fallen from his, llr. Tierney's) Hon. Friend. It was impossible for any lanai to Standhigher ipputslic.npinian aUd . public . respeo . t . than his lion. an cEtearned . Frient. Won die.akack ~O „ , • . was unnecessary to say another wad ; the question was, What should be done with the calumniator? What was to be done-with the Lord Chancellor? There wjs a de fence made for. that Noble Lord ; andyet not one of his advocates had been empowered by him to utter one word of all they had advanced. If the Lot(' Chancellor had intended to humble himself before the House, the.' Right Hon. Gentleman the Secretary for Foreign Afy . fairs would not have been the Individual selected to convey that intention; because it *might have been be lieved that the Lord Chancellor had interrupted the 'Right Honourable Gentleman in his foreign travels in order that he might have a defender in that House.— What was said by the Hon. and Learned Gentle Man in defence of the Noble Lord was not very concluiive; fogy he attributed the warmth with, which he had expressed himself to the first impulse of indignation oa seeing himself attacked, that being the only paper which he was ever known to neglect taking home to reconsider — (A laugh )—it WAS the only paper on which he ever de cided a ithout taking time to read over—(l.nagfiter). He -was called upon to acquit the Noble Lord, not be cause ;he was a cool man—not because he was a consi derate man—not because be was a dispassionate man— but because he was a.rash man—( Near, hear, and laugh f ter). Thy excuse for the attack made by the Noble Lird, , while under the infinence of his feelings, the house we called upon to take, not fiom himself, or at a first hand. but at a third or fourth. When Mr. Farqu'iarsan should `be called to the Bar of the. House, he might say, un doubtedly, that he had correctly reported the Noble Lord ; and from what he knew of Mr. Farquharson he, was justified in believing - he bail reported hi ul correctly therefore, everything the House had done was pi emature. Would the-House, therefore, say, that because the Lord Chancellor was the offender, they would not vindicate their privileges? In the last care of breach of privilege Mr. Hope had been brought from Edinburgh ; arid 'becausethat'HouSe had dreier .itselfxdilsfied that Mr. Hope had not, intended a hof privilege, they let him off, he ( Mr. Tie, ney) thought too ensily. . He could easily conceive the temper and state of mind of the. Load Chancellor, after the:nuniber.of motions that had' been made in that House - respecting his Court. Ile argument that it was not his (Mr.Tierqey's) Hooourable and Learned Friend who had been the object of the Noble Lord's attack, but 'the paaerLthat it was 'tile paper and not the man that he meant; and yet the Noble Lord had suffered the matier to stand over on : Wednesday, Thursday, and - Friday, without any at tempt to ascertain whether or not the publication in the Paper was accurate; but on Saturday, said, " This -is - enough for me, I, shall go down, and give it him.'" "e 46- (:)h, " replies the Solicitor-General, " his Lordship' meant.to attack .the Newspaper, not the Barrister. :What! has a NeWspiper di a gown upon its back ?":-- ,(Much cheering.)—Wlien it lias, the answer may he a good one, but not .till theis—( Ilea r, hear).—l have too high a respect for the - Learned Attorney-General to suppose that he would enter ' into.anything like so ca villing a defence as to say, that the Lord Chancellor -did not mean to refer to a debate in the House of Corn- Mons, or that when he mentioned men " with gowns on their backs," he did not allude to my three Hon. and, Learned Friends who took part in the debate pf Tuess day night : against them only could the attack be le- veiled. He knew there was a difficulty as to how the 'Laid Chancellor wit's to be heard ;in hii own vindlca itiOn ; but if the question should he carried, he (Mr. !Tierney) would be the very first man tp recommend to 'the House to pause before. proceeding further. If the Lind 'Chancellor should apologize on the Bench— if 'he came down to his Coma and . were to declare -,...“ What I have said of the Hon. and Learned Gentle man, I uttered rashly, and on a reporrof a speeeh which I have ascertained was unfounded;" stichn declaration would ruin him as a Judge and as . a Lord, Chancellor, ,and, therefore, it could not be expected that the Noble and Learned' Lord would say any such thing. fie - be: lieved the Lord Chancellor to be a man of . integrity; but he believed him not io be such i Judge, as, that Parliament ought to lay their privileges aside, in order 'that he should escape without their erpressiog the Sense of the HMls* on his viaduct s . Re felt gfat fesped for th e Luid ChancellOr : ,but a rk all : that respect, be isTreuld say, the * business of his -Court had, for the last awo years, been suches had made it be termed a na tional grievance i and was ,he, because he was Lord Chancellor . Rnglind of twenty-two, years standinF,, to say whatever he pleased of any man? He (Mr. Fier ,ney).could appeal to every man in the House—he could appeal to the feelings Of every man in the country, and 'ask s if. the praktice of, the Court of Chancery was or was not a grievance to Be complained of ? This was the ' individual: and becauie he was the Lord Chancellor, ahe -House was _to he called upon to take no further steps in the affair. If the motion should be refused, there could never again arise a possibility of asserting their privileges.—Men out of doors would say there was no impartiality observed—that a differeutsonduct was to be obsetved towards the rich And the poor. What could bi said to any - arian out ,of doors who should say— " Why did you not refuse to do that with me, which you did not dare attempt against the Lord Chancellor of England, in vindication of ycidr own privileges?" , Mr. Secretary PEEL submitted to the Houie, before it should take any step in this business, to consider well what it ought to do. ' h appeared to him, that in dis coising that - matrer two subjects Hid been' Afiled trta, he should fi rst ask, therefore, had any litsericir of ; pins vilege been committed? and next, beaten?. threat been used against any Gentleman of the Bar? These were the qnes:ions upon which the House wi *ld hove to de cide, and the latter one was by fir the tiniteimportant.. With respect to the qoestionof breach of privilege, it was' unnecessary for him to say how often in everyday were the standing orders and the privileges of the House violated. And here he would remind, the House, that in this instance the cause of ail the offence which had. been taken at either side had-originated and began in a breach of the' orders of their. own House. They had undoubtedly the power to suppress the publiCation of their own debates. Here then tvas,a fl grant instance and proof of its inconvenience. It was st.tied that an Hon'. Member had Oit a late-occasion made use of lan page reflecting on the conduct of the Noble Lord pre-, siding inthe highest {,curt of Justicein• the. realm of Great Britain. ~The report, of this speech goes abroad, not only through England, but through the world.— The consequence naturally niust be, that the individual ao alluded to roust feel his character and his honuttri -wounded .lif the charges stated to have been maalol against him? If-that distinguished indivicloal, so cir t enistanced, shall coneeiiebimself falsely calumniated, t **Quid natiititlifoliciw that, with the feelings Of t an. . , :lisliman, he had made use of language which was ealTexpresbiveola sente of injury ariaiqg from a gross 'inisrepresentation or Caluniny on his chaioctif and mo ives They it'ailld aiio recoiled that be was fidt the -1111111k..4.. • • , nersra who had gone out of his way to around thefeele logs of the Hon. Member. He being charged in his judicial capacity with improper conduct in that Court, took this opportunity when on the Bench to sepal the attack made on him in such aoway' that he might be taken as saying, " I am not going out • I the way to take exceptions or calumniate: but this I say, I am not guilty; or, if you will, the assertion is 'reed) false." There certainly was due to the Hon. Member, in his capacity as a Member of that Home, a Degree o invio• . lability of character, and he naturally resolved within himself to defend that c:etrecter. IVhar mean , it might be asked, had the House to effect that object? It was true that any man might-get hp in his piste, aed put lellawa the publication of what transpired within tai it r l House. If the House did so, then there was an r.•; Auf lit at once; but whilst the publication was connived or per mined, those debates, or any particular persim's sentiments ' will be .open to animadveision ; and it would be found impossible, a hen persons out of doers, • were arraigned, to prevent them iei el iing that attack, : and telling the Public they were not guilty. It would be recollected that when an Hon. Member had pub lished a speech which he made in that H ruse, a dis tinCtion was drawn by the Judges who tried the cause, and they tnlu him, that though not otherwise respon sible for it,. by his publication of it he made it his own, and became, in consequence of that act, personally re sponsible— ( Cheers). The Hon. Baronet opposite (Sir • Francis Burdett, we believe), cheered as if he thorighi he had g ot into a difficulty from which he could not extricate himself. lie Would ask him how was that charge to be repelled? lt,had been widely circulated through the medium of the Newspapers, and through the same medium only could that attack be met and defeated. Here the lion. Member drew a parallel be tweet: the present case and that of Mr. Hope, in which he disclaimed making any ° allusion for the sake Of.pat(y purposes, onto gratify or wound private feelings. In . that it appeared Mr. Hope had been charged with improperly animadverting on the observations of an Hon. and Learned Member in his place in Parliament. Mr. Hope on that occasion appealed to the Hon. Mem ber in his lease. Mr. Menzies did net appeal directly, but animadverted on the speech as it had been reported in the debates, and on his examination atel.e bar of the ifouse observed, that he had found the re t ort alluded • to in a newspaper, which being a public reflection on his character he took upon . him to contradict. What did the House dh? It veted that Mr. Menzies having ti sasfactorily explained hiSconduct to the House, should be discharged from his.attendance. As to the report he should take, it as all.had done, to be incorrect. The whole question arising. in this case was one which turned on legal grounds, and it was difficult for Honourable Members to. understand it, .wile-s they were in the pici fession.of The law.. [Here the Right Hon. Gentleman rear,lehe rahole of the passage, as given in the speech of gr. Alietcromby.3—No doubt the report of - the speech in the Newspaper of the Honourable Member for Caine was not correctly given, from a co npaiiscn of the accusation with what had been reported to have been deliVered by him on..the occasion alluded.to. Ina asmuch as the Lord Chancellor is not said to hive • made allusion in his Court to that part of the offensive charge as to the signatures of tWO CCUMel s ller to the ice mainder of the report of tha t speech so imputed to the Honourable and Learned Meraer, which stated that " the Lord Chancellor permitted that practice; by which a great expense . was brought on the litigating potties. and great disparagement. on the Learned. Judge wlea had just he ad the cause. Hence arose much of the increased business of the Lad Cbancellni's Cdurt, in permittingehose 'causes to be- brought fur hli lwariag_ by that construction, or, tether,. evasionaehe Act of Parlienient." If this were so was it not necessary thik some notice .should be -taken of it? The ..hlsible end Learned Judge, in the .observations alluded to, suited the practice of the Court antecedently, beginnipg:eith die observation that ". As it . has.beeti reeresentesletat the person who sat here ,does. mist rief by hearing xer rain motions withowt the.signatui e of Counsel, Oa is to say, when motions have been made to .oischatge au order of the . Vice Chancellor, or the Master of, the Rolls, such motions'hase. been brought on 'without the signature of - Counsel, I have only to state that having been in this Court since the year MS, whenever a mo lion has been made before the Master of the Rolls, which. be has refused to allow, or which he did allow, and upon an application to the .Chancellor to vary what the Master a the Roll; had done, or to de stroy it altogether; and so. again, whenever 4 m , don _ has been made before the Vice-Chancellor, and Cduesel have been of opinion that the matter had been impro perly granted or discharged,. the party has :assays in a:l..hose cases been at liberty to .move again, with a view to set the' matter right; and if the signature of Counsel be necessary, toailtea the practice of the. Curt, as it has obtained since the period I havemeetioued, all I can say is, that I have not a rightao tax the . King's subjects in that way." if this accusation were not cal culated to create irritation, he was at a loss to know whate.vas; yet the observations he had just read could not be objected.to in fairness. Nothing could belmore Moderate. .As to the imputation alluded to in die next sentence, he would say that after all insinuation being thrown out, it was impossible for flesh or blood to bear, it, or contain itself without andeavreiring to repel the insinuation, situated as the Ish..ble Judge was. Lord ' Hardwicke, it would be recollected, held, in a somewhat similar case, that no inegulau it y whatever should be al lowed to be imputed to any Judge on the Bench, more particularly that which he filled, uit hour being imme diately called upon in duty to correct or meet 'such im putation as seen as made, and that tl•cie was no roe duty galore imperative on tl e Bench than this. He would after this ask tl e Hou-e it such iv. re the duty of a Judge, was the epithet alike' to such a charge, namely, that of falsehood, to make the difference; or 'was it the use of terms which made it a breach of pri vilege? Did the denial in strong terms -appear impro per in . him on such an occasion? Had the Lord Chan cellor said •that the charge was completely. erroneous, what would base been the difference in effect? In stating it to be an utter falsehood, as it relerred to his practice in the Court of Chancery, it was not iiitextded to apply to the person supposed to have . mitre the charge, but to the- fact so stated. Tie Noble and Learned Judge went en to state—" With respect toots, peals and reheeririgs, it is supposed that 1 have heard them on new evidepceiend thereby brought alhceedre on some part of the Court s ', COW there be areyoing more moderate ? (Lthrkr and Rea,.( from. tide oppo, sition).—He could not 'conceive it possible, so poor triumph should be effected over him for one pan 43£44 sentence before he .could erne* at . the qtlai whicfi . he was abeut to attach tdit'as to what, Gall ' ~ But beavould contend that if two lines. ot . pert.or - litres, weretaken out ;of those' observationisalie4' gea§ , .. • • • _ ', :.~> 1 if M ~ e: / • • 4. ' 1 • . ; • : ' ;~ t'~