The British Press; or, Morning Literary Advertiser. — London, England, 1825-03-02 00:00:00

* 'X~ accusation Ina made w tbe .41 We see le be vomisred at that he met it instant Op bib* 1114 She no. mem exeited,et by the saleoien ammo& lib VII to emerge, stud tat ai r woad yet hoe adopted. Perhaps tee 'felt - Mb . ex* • iao eseddiely at an accusation 'Mitts, Se It was reareirealeseed to bins, he felt l" Altiriotk'apid frAtin ; ang t net to be wondered at tivirere alsould hive fat and sinlistlignandy on hearing such a charge' preferred again* him, alter to many years of merits and aersicese (Chesil Melt the Miniserld et.) lie might not s virtues "on his sleet le! dews tbitoek : at.'" Re might ehei . sen'siti'vely afW e to Shit be believed to be unjust duct ; but If to be too sensitive on such a sub. 'I be remembered that It was only an excess ,should therefore be not toe harshly dealt with. imated to him, that the papers which contained 'h formed the foundation of the Lord Chan n only put into his hands as he was going impression created in his mind might strong excitement which provokedthe unfor ', was the subject of this night's discussion. at the statement of the Hon. Gentleman was tne Lord Chancellor had commented; and be- Chancellor and the Hon. Gendrnan there was a h the error lay. That error was the inisrenre of the lion. Gentleman. This explar.ation he applicability of any harsh remark which in have pronounced. The Hon. Gentleman any imnutation on him, fully to the satin i of tit! country. It was unnecessary, and now that it had appeared it was a misrepresentation of it, that the ob .....____ eielicable, he would ask the lion. Member, in candour, If that misrepresentation was not calculated to excite in the mind of the Lord Chancellor a cerresponding indignation to that Wh'eh he so properly felt and expressed that night, on the sepporition that he was the object of the expression which was so clearly inapplicable to him. Under these circumstances, as the phrase was one occasioned by a misapprehension which was not Tectitied ; it the Hon. Wender therefore persisted in pressing his motion to a divislce. he would certainly vote against it, and more particu larly, as the Hoe. Gentleman had set himself right in the opinion of the House and of the country. (Hese, hear.) 31r. BROUGHAM rose.—lf the only object of his Hon. Friend (Mr. Abercromby) in bringing forward the present motion was to obtall a triumph over the Lord Chancellor, of to establish a defence of himself, the object of his motion had already been ac complished, for his triumph over the bard Chancellor, and his vindecation of himself, were complete. (('heers.) %Without refer ence to the statement of his Hon. Friend, the admissions which were made, he Must say with great fairacss, with great candour, unit not a little of judiciousness, in defence of the Lord Chan cellor, fully established aid sustained his vindication. Thesead. missions, which were very humble and very submissive, could not justify , or excuse the conduct of the Lord Chancellor, al. though they might be in some degree available as an extenua tipn of it. However these admissions might so serve to extenuate, they 'coeld not surely be considered as a substantial defence in tale: case of a breach of the privileges of the House, more glaring nod more flagrant than any to which, within his recollection, the zateation of the House had been called. It was not alone the nrutection of the aharactee of his Hon. Friend that the house had now to consider •-that character which had always stood clear arid utiimpeached, and high in the estimation of all who knew him —over which even "the shadow of a shade" bad never passed, and which die Lord Chancellor of England, in the present instance, had so unjustly maltreated. Wear, hear.) High us was chiracter, yet his lion. Friend would excuse him fur saying there was a higher consideration still—the privileges of that house, wrmiehif the present motion wee not acceded to, would exist only • to he laughed at by those who hate, and desp ised , by those who subdue us. If this motion be rejected, I say (said Mr. gritagbitn emphatically ), the privileges of this House are only powerful against the weak, but that they are impotent against the strong:" (Loud cheers.) If the Editor of a Newspaper had come tetented tc.s freely on any thing, that occurred in that House, veruld be not immediately be called to the bar, end 'be made an. seetible for the freedom of his commentary ? Would any of the gentle exenses which had been heard that night be allowed him as au Ovellitile defence? Would it be regarded as a sufficient defence foe hits say that he wrote it in a moment of irritation—that he tllought the privileges of the press had been roughly touched? t (leer, hear, and laughter)—that the remarks were matte hastily, and that forty-eight hours afterwards perhaps he would not have written them. Would such excuses be adduced in vindication of Feditore and Reporters, or any peon without influence and etitind to sustain him ? or if adduced, would the House entertain diem.? In the case of such a man they would amount to no sleenee. He remembered a nee in which the privileges of the dfouse were maintained with a very strict and rigorous severity. 'llc,. party there accused was not a very high and powerful man— tle-wall Xi. 'Gale Jones, he believed, a surgeon. The alleged breach of privilege, in that instance, consisted in his having pla c,feded a subject for discussion, at a debating club, which was put ti the &Wipe of a question to an Hon. Member of that House. This was by a quibble perverted into the meaning of an infringe r:lna of a part of their privileges specified in the Bill of Rights. The passage referred to was that which provided " that the pro ceedings in Parliament be questioned in no court or place out of it." P.y a contemptible quibble and perversion of all common sense, the conduct of Mr. Jones was voted to be a breach of this eraciment of rights; and by this sophistical constructioodt he was condemned to Ncwgate for the months. It aPpeirid to him (Mr. Brougham) that without having recourse to any quibble, the present c.rie more nearly app r oached a breach of that provi sert of the to orßights, on which Mr. Jones had been con demned to imprisonment. Here the Lord Chancellor, on the seat efjuinice, does indeed question the proceedings of this House, and `lliac top at a time berate he inquirea, before be takes time to &- quadrat himself with the accuracy of what he hears or reads ; he does still more, castigates/I' oudiegre—he . proceads. to condemn, aed even pronounces sentence on his lion. Fnead(Mr. Abercromby) without bearing. Let the House consider if tais sentence had been pronounced against a banister practising in his Coen, whose cha racter, fame, existence, nay the very subsistence of whose family, depended on his professionil exertions. How ruinous to hint must such a declaration of the Lord Chancellor prove? lie would find himself deprived of practice and of the well-earned reward of his talents, and even cut of from existence, as far as in the Lord tliancellor lies, for ever. This would be one of the evil conse. einences that must ensue from rejecting the present motion and leav ing the characteraof Members of that House exposed to such fearful observations as were this night the subject of complaint. The result of giving imptinhy to the Chancellor now would be, that no bar rister, a Member of that House, would discharge the duty that he owed the public, through a fear of being punished by judicial vin dictiveness. lie would repeat, that a more gross and flagrar.t yip dation of the privileges of that House had not before been sub refitted to them, and he should add, that, if they permitted it to pass manoticed, it was idle any more to talk of privileges. *Should editors or reporters feel a wish in future to trample on them, they wpuid be fn',ls to leave that wish ungrati fi ed, fr om aoy scruples about thepirivileges of the House of Commons. (Hear.) The SOLICITOR-GENERAL then rose to address the House; for a few seconds he was not audible, from the wise that prevail-A among the Members. The first sentence of the lion. and Learned Gentleman that reached us was, that as the observations 'of the Lord Chancellor had been founded on a representation in a rev/sparer, that he allowed motions to be mitten' in such a manner as to create delay, the Home could not understand the merits of tlie ease unless they would listen to a dry explanation of the facts ant eiti*Minitances relating to the transaetion. There could be no doubt, from the statement of his Hon. and Learned Friend (Mr. Aberteomby). that the speech he made, and the speech he was re. presented to have made, were not one and the same. His HOD. arid Lesened Friend bad correcdy stated what he had spoken, but he was represtoted to have said that whereas under the `'ice-Chao. cellars Mill no appeal could beheard from a decision of that Judge upless the petition was signed by two Counsel, the Lord Chancel. lqr had by a forced construction heard appeals without the edema. tare of two Counsel. in such a manner as to bring disparagement - upon the Vice-Chancellor. Under these circumstances, he would a4k his Hon. and Learned Friend, who had appealed to the send bilita of his own feelings, if it had been publicly asserted of him, that while 'acting under the high responsibility and solemn oblige tains of a Judge, he had been guilty of' a public breach of an Act of Parliament, nay, that die multitude, frequency, and repetition of his breaches of law were such, that they constituted a great pub. lac grievance his Hoth. and Leareed Friend had boa thua4 c'mr.itycd with so aggsrattd a breach of his public duty, would not his lettings have been greatly initated ? (Hear, hear.) The ac- Gaunt given by his Hon. and Learned Friend that night was most adcurately stated ; but if the House attended to the representation i idle paper, they would find that a gross misrepreeeniation of that speech had been given forth to the public. He would cecupy their attention only a minute, while he read one peewee from the report is the .Itornang Herald, the paper to which he alluded. The Hon. , and Learned Gentleman then read the following passage from the ; r , eoort of sir. Abeicromby's speech in the -1/ornieg Herold of , Wednesday lest : L ` Any cause that had been before the Vice-Chancellor might be agein, according to the present practice, brought before the Chao. calor—not by . way of aeaeal, but on rehearing, by getting the pieties to furnish new affidavits, setting forth new matter, although the law w .s, that no appeal should be brought without the sips. turn of two Counsel. The Lord Chancellor permitted that mac tiCe, by which a great cepense was brought on the litigating parties, and great disparagemeat on the Learned Judge who had just heard the cause. fleece arose ;latch of the increased business of the Lnrd Clianceilor's Court, in permitting those causes to be brought for his liMring by that construction, or, rather, evasion of the Act of Porliatnem." The lien. 'and Learned Member resumed. He asked could any Snake fail to express his indignation on reading such a passer, in which a breach of duty was openly imputed to him, and the mime eduction of an innovation of practice, by which d' ement was brought upon the Vice -Chancellor? It was not in alleged that the Lord Chancellor had introduced the innovation with that intent, but that in effect it had been productive of render ing the Alce-Cliancellor's Bill c bortire. The House had been told azeurately that the published account of his Honourable sad Learned Friend's speech was not cornet. ll'hen the Lord Chaneellor made allusion to the subject on Saturday, he (the Soli cimr.Gimeral) was absent from the Court of Chancery. lie could not, eterefme, speak of his own knowledge as to the expressions vied by the Noble and Learned Lord. It' he could, he would can didly, for be could have no object in concealing it on such a motion as this, or the consideration of which his honour, his veracity, and his independence were concerned (hear, hear), and on which he would for no man go either to the right or to the left. (Iles% hear. her.) He had gone into the Court just after the Chancellor had used the words complained of. lie (the Solicittrr-General) was not itt tile habit of reading the debates when he had heard them. He Ceerefore hot referred to any report of his Hoe. and Learned wear his virtues " on his sl hate — V.Wi' t 6 - senile: l i* comment on his conduct ; ;eel welt a fault, it shnuld b of tight feeling, and should It had been just intimated the daily report which fon cellar's %marks, had been into Coot. The sudden have prouatt.! that strong tunate exprems' , nt which *1 IrWas now manifest that tl nt mat on which the Lon tWisep the Lord Chancell( nOtrk pDint in which the se Cation of the speech of tl eteMpted him fecal the a ttieLorti Chancellor might h3deler - ed himself from su faction of the House and Pier:fore, to go further; rot to his speech, but to jsCtionalk phrase was np . ,l in cando:•.r, if that misrem . . I e Illalend`s speech ; but vaben he heard *bat had token place, he Was attracted to see the statement in the papee. As soon is he had read it, he said he doubted whether his Hon: and Learned Friend had said so. (Cries of " Hear, hear," from the (apposition.) He was glad to hear this statement cheered, because if he had been asked to have given hie opinion, he should have declared that he believed the report was not correct, though his lion. and Learned Friend had not fully denied all that was imputed to him in the report. His [fon. and Learned Friend, however, had stated, that he had founded his complaint upon the too great facility with which mo tions were Lard before the Lord Chancellor. lie (the Solicitor- General) happened to possess some information upon this subject. He knew that two year_s ago his Honour the Vice-('hancellor had complained to the Lord Chancellor, that after his honour had de cided &motion, the same motion was frequently heard the next day before his Lordship'. The Chancellor said, there was nothing in the Act of Parliament to prevent it. The Vice-Chancellor then required that his Lordship should establish, as a condition of re hearing a motion, the signature of two Counsel, as it was specified in the Act relative to an appeal. The Chancellot said it was im. i possible he could attempt to insist upon any such condition, because the imposition of it was not warranted either by law or I the practice of the Court, for, if a motion was in the first instance heard before the blaster of •he Rolls, the signature of two Counsel was not necessary, and, therefore, though the Vice-Chancellor com plained of motions in cases of bankruptcy, in which the signature of Counsel was not required, the Lord Chancellor said he could not require it, because the practice of all his predecessors had been not to require it. His Honourable and Learned Friend had appro. ;Mated to himself expressions which he had not used. The Lora Charteeller was not speaking of him dr persona. The Honourable Members around his Honourable and Learned Friend, who had joined in cheering the eulogy pronounced upon him by the Honour able and Learned Member for 11'inchelica (Mr. ltrone,hem) had not more fervently expressed their high opinions of his Honourable and Learned Friend's character titan he felt. He fully concurred In those cheers, which were not, which c: aid not be too loud in op , plauee of the unspotted integrity of his hionoural e le and teamed 1 Friend. Ile believed that no man was less capable of speaking what was not rote—no man was less capable of making a public question the vehicle of a private attack f Cheers.) The knowledge he had of his Honourable and Learned Friend's character, then all occasions studiously careful not to say more nor less than the truth, called from him, at the moment he retie the report, the ejaculation that he doubted that his Honourable and Learned Friend had used the expressions imputed to hint. Ile exclaimed at once, " I doubt that he said so." Ile contended then, that he had exculpated the Noble Lord (Loud cries of " No, no.") If he had not been fortunate .enough to bring the tfononnible Gentlemen opposite to that con clusion, he would leave them to crone to what conclusion they might think tit, and he trusted they would allow him to do so also. His Honourable and Learned Frien.l complained of a personal attack ; and he agreed with him, that if a judge was to have the right ed libitum to attack any Member of the profession who praetwed in his Court. the consequence must be that the bar would be thrown into a state of prostration, degradation, and humiliatinn, to which no honourable man could stoop; and he assured the House that lie would never co-operate in the accomplishment of any such result. He would never assist in such a purpose for sty Chancellor or Judge in existence (Hear, hear, bear.) If he sup(insed that the Lord Chancellor had used the expressions complained of with a personal aspect, he would support the motion ; butt he was satisfied that the Noble Lard had spoken not dr persona, but of the limper he held in his hand. That paper imputed to his Lordship the authorship of the delays in the Court of Chancery, anti his Iterdship refuted the calumny. He (the Solicitor-Ge netal) repeated, he did not believe that a personal attack had been intended. The Lord Chancellor's obsereations were not a personal censure upon the speaker of a speech, but an answer to a speech not spoken. Instead of those remarks having been levelled against the Honourable and Learned Member flor Caine, they were merely de signed to set right a report in which the Honourable and Learned Member had been grossly and egregiously misrepresented. He (the Solicitor-General) therefore a bs olved the LMd Chancellor of the sliglerest breach of the respect due to the bar. ' He acquitted the Noble and Learned Lord of having done any act that any Judge In Vrestminitter Hall, at any period of ti-e histoty of the bar, would have avoided as oppressive or contemptuous toe/netts that body. Hine veniam damuti, petamus quevicissim. This was one of the subjects on which any men, any Judge might be expected to th ew an intimate of mind ; and were thelHouse—was his Honourable and Learned Friend prepared to say that any in quiry that might be instituted and conducted in any manner, 'ought not to hurt the feelings or wound the• sensibility of a Judge? The Lord Chancellor had found himself held up in the public prints as guilty of a perversion of justice, as the author of mischiefs In his own Court. which had become the subject of Parliamentary inquiry. What was the Idea of stoical apathy expected from him ? That he should hear all the calumny and abuse that was represented to have been heaped upon him with unmoved calmness. It was more consistent with human nature that It should happen that, when this calumny and abuse were made known to him, he should express his feelings in the strongest and warmest language, rather than in a strain more or less measured, as a man in a cooler disposition might be induced to express him. self. The conclusion to which he (the Solicitor-General) came was, emit personal reflection or censure was not the object of the Noble lewd. He agreed entirely with his Hon. and Learned Friend, that neither the Lord Chancellor nor any other Judge ought to use the judgment-seat as a place from whence attack or annoyance should be directed against any person ; and as a 'member of the bar, he would be amongst the foremost to vindicate its independence. But again he begged the House to revert to the marked digerence . awe t Ise had sheen] that no Imputation was fntended to_ lie a - 'eyed against any Member of the House-'that the observations of the Lord Chancellor were an hypothetical answer to a case that did not exist--an answer in'rect to a thing, rid wot to is person. (Near, hear, hear.) Ile therefore could see no reason why the question should go further. If the privileges of the House had been in vaded, it was when no such design was intended. The reply was not levelled against the Member for Caine, but was an abstract vindication of the Chanceller's own character, without the least personal aspect of an offensive nature. (Hear. hear, hear.) Mr. SCA RLETT then rose and said—l feel that I should be tray the duty I owe to the House and to my profession if I did not address a few obeervations to the House upon this question. The speech of my Honourable and Learned I riend (the Solicitor-Ge neral) does him honour. He has uttered no sentiments as his own, to which I do not most cordially subscribe. He hiss shewn clearly that my Honourable and Learned Friend (the Member fur Caine) never did what has been complained of; for he tells US that as soon as he read the report he doubted that my Honourable and Learned Friend could have said so, and I base etill to learn that he is more disposed to doubt than the Lord Chancellor of England.—' l (Hear, hear, and a laugh.) And surely, before he took a SIM I of 1 all others the most degrading to the Bar of England, he ought to' have entertained the doubts (Hear, hear,) which my Honourable and Learned Friend (the Solicitor-General) confesses he aid. lie ought to hare examined whether the report was correct. He ougta to have sent for my Honourable and Learned Friend (Mir Aber. cromby), and asked hint whether he would abide by time eeport. (Cheers.) if the Noble and Learned Lord had meant only to complain of the report, what was more ease than to hare said that the report was false ? There are various ways in which a charge contained in the report of a speech made in this House may be re pelled, without violating the privileges of the House. The party complaining may state It as a report, and treat it as /melt. It does not tallow that he need at the 'Member. I should be Fled to know whether, if the Lord Chwnoellor or any other Judge, in come:queriee of any espreesion painful to his feelings or injurious ! to his letretur, should proceed to comnat the person offending to prieon, is th. it. rev individual of any description of party who would wet say that This would be one of the grossest violations of ! the privileges of the ifloule ? Suppose that by some process he' could connuntl, this Judge TM to inflict a tine upon the offending I person, eanovettly because be had delivered his sentiments in this house, contrary to the honour or feelings of this Judge, would the House hesitate to menider this also as a gross vioktion of ire pri vileges? I ask the House then this question: Ate you prepared to say that the Lord Chancellor, or any other Judge, iehall rtetack the person or property of your Members for what they may slay in this House, but that you will surrender their characters to its pleasure? (Loud cheers.) I have no hesitation to express my sirs feelings, which I am sure will accord with yours, that I would father be sent to prison—l would rather be deprived of my fortune --I could rather be strinpee of my gown, than be called a liar on the mat Ft jnatice. (Loud cheers.) I will put another question to 1 % I II& b a c u r sane tw o t , other paint is o o t a ra a nk foo a t n ii d ig is :/ tu e n q e uak i t u y t 3 ,,,, uttered' llege the awe often. re nature as Ilierd Chan ' wilco ha `r igid Mashy fahlouralsle and Tres • suppose he had told the Member that he had spoken a gross falsehood in the ' House. and did not deserve to wear the gown on his back, would not the }louse have had the tottrage to resist that insult e What then ought the House to do in the case of a subject elmost the highest in the land ? If these privileges are to be held to be violated in the case of any individual, however hum ble his station, or trifling the infringement. shall nothing be done when an attack, rude, violent, ard in every respect fitting to call for rmietance, is made upon us by the Lora-Chancellor of England, sitting on the bench of justice ? (Cheere.) It has been said, I will not say with what truth, that the baraf England is in a de graded state. It would ill become sue to pretend to discuss the merits of the bar, or the truth of this preposition ; but I will say that if it was intended to reduce the bar to a degraded state, a more effectual way could not bepureued than if any member of theibar, who should also happen to be a Member of the House, should date, in the discharge of his public duty to say any thing inju. trims to the reputation, or painful to the fe elings of the Judge in whom. Court he prarised, tot that judge, cal the seat of justice. with all the power in his hands to take away.at once the moral and professional character of the Barrister, by charging him with utter lag a gross falsehood, and adding, hi a entering tone, " This has been said bye man with a gowif on-his back." (Cheers.) If the House would visit an inferior offender who should so attack one of its members, stili it forbear because the Lord Chancellor at the offer der ? (Cheers.) if I know any thing of the foundation or 'advan- Owes of privileges, it is because they are a protection 04.;niost power. (Cheers.) I oak you, theq, because a breach of those privileges has been committed by an radivideal possessing more patrunarn, power, and authority than any other in the kingdom, skull it be passed over without notice ?' I say nothing against the morel or judicial character of the Lord Chancellor : with the greatest see. cerity I pay my tribute to his high reputation, his great dignity, and his unspotted honour ; but deal lie,beceuse of hitapower,attack an humble individual, like my Hon. and Learned Friend, though we all know his great excelleucv end merits, humble as lit is com pared with the Lord Chencellor,=and pour forth the phial of ails mignty wrath on my Honourable lead Learned Friend's head, be cause he has acid what the Lord Chancellor supposed was false? (('heers.) If my lienourable and Learned Friend bad called In epee:inn the conduct of any other Judge, and be had ventured to make eooffereive a declaration as the Lord Chancellor, would not univenuil indigestion have been excited throughoto this Notice? And shall it be less forcibly expressed kaiak the Lord Chancellor te the °gender ? Shall the greetnase of these/fender insure imptinity meant esse what was untrue, : t will not irtit it as a gums._ which his hor.our is involved, bat I ask again, shall he state what he supposes to be true when it is calculated to degrade or vilify a Member of the House, because that Member has spoken what he believes to be the troth ? (Cheers.) I beg the pardcn of the House for detaining it so long. I have felt the more anxious to ex plain myself fully, because it is the conduct of :he Lord Chancellor that is in question. Towards that eminent individual I can have only feelings of personal respect. I must therefore be averse to enter into any discussion relating to him. In try intercourse with him, I have experienced only the utmost personal civility, and the' most obliging condescension. I have been impelled forward by the strongest sense of duty, but I admit most reluctantly.. It has tip.' peered to me that since I have been an observer of the history di Parliament, never did an occasion arise that called so vehemently for the vindication of the privileges of Parliament. (Loud cheering), The A rrom NEY-GENEP.AL said, if he were asked to state i candidly his impression as to this matter of complaint, he should say decidedly that the Noble and Learned Lord (Eldon) had no in tention of attacking his lion. and Learned Friend, the Member for Caine. He believed that the Noble and Learned Lord's sale object was to derendliimself against the charges contained in the Newspaper report. What was the situation of the Lord Chad cellor, or any other individual who was made the object of this public of puc attack ? The calumnies that were supposed to have been uttered respecting him were demisted throughout the land. In this instance the debate had taken place on Tuesday evening. On Wednesday it was published. ( Hear, hear.) What was the charge against the Lord Chancellor? That he had Seen guilty of extreme malversation in his judicial duty ; that he hail resorted to ti r e l e a n7ersion and evasion of an Act of Parliament, and for the de and disgraceful purpose of elevating his own reputation at e expense of another Judge. his inferior in the same Court. What accusation could be more galling ? and where, to add to its irritste ht g nature, was it made? Within the walls of Parliament, from whence it would immediately circulate through the country, and at the time it was seen by the Noble Loid had been in currency several days. (Loud cries of "Hear, hear, hear.") Was the Noble Lord to be supposed to feel nothing of such a charge ? When he uttered the expressions complained of, he for the first time had seen the article. He held it in his hand, and expressly said he alluded to the paper. Ile had no object but to defend himself against the amersior.s which he there saw had been cast against hint. The lion. and Learned Member for Caine had doubtless expressed himself accurately and dis'inctly as a lawyer, but the practise of the Court of Chancery was so intricate, that there was some reason to apprehend that he might not have een understood by a person unskilled in the mere distinctions and technicalities , 6f • that Court. The facts of the case were, that as soon as the LORI Chancellor had taken his seat on the bench, the paper was put into his hand, and he had expressed himself in an unguarded manner certainly, but With that warmth and indignation which such a charge was cslculated to excite, on the first motion that came before hint on which he could allude to the article. It was unnecesug that he should have alluded specifically to the report, as he heed the paper in his Maid at the time he was speaking. If it was said he used language too strong, let it be remembered that he was re- I plying to an uneontradicted report, in which he was represented to' have pereerted the law for the basest purposes. Great allowance ought to be made for the feelings of an individual at the moment so' gross a caluniey was first contmunicated to him. It was hardly fair, under such circumstances, to criticise the particular eepriese siona in which the observations were conveyed. He (the Attorney. General) trustedo therefore, the House would net look at the question partially, nor with reference to the last century, when their proceedings were not daily communicated to the world. If they allowed this publication without complaining—if they allowed charges to be put into the mouths of their Members which they had never uttered—if they allowed these things to be done with impu nity, it would be a little too much to enforce theirprivileges against an individual who, in a moment of irritation, uttered those expres- *ions which in a cool and temperate moment would never have oc. furred to him. As to the degraded state of the bar, he (the Attor ney-General) differed with his lion. and Learned Friend (Mr. Scarlett), if he entertained the opinionexhich he had said was current amongst others ; for he (the Attorney-General) believed that at no period was there greater independence at the bar, or freer discussion, not only in discussing cases, but in the conduct of the Judges them. selves. As far as his Observation zed experieuce went, he believed the assertion was wholly destitute of foundation. It was clear there had been a false representation of what had been stated by his Hon. and Learned Friend (Mr. Abercromby). The misrepresentation was presented to the Lord Chancellor on a sudden, and if he expressed himself warmly and intemperately, it hardly constituted a cue to warrant the motion before the House. Mr. SCARLETT.—I did not state it as my opinion that the bar was in • degraded state. I did not say so, nor do I think so; but I will say this, that the honour and independence of the bar are owing solely to its own vindication. bir. • leap El; . rid, that os this question, of such immesh* • • to the vital rights of the Rouse, he should feel bight& isgraced if he gale a silent vote, er if he neglected to give his seasons why the motion should not be rejected. A Member of the Mouse had come down to it and made complaint of no less a person than the Lord Chancellor of England, and he had stated further, that the groundwork of the oftener was laid on the judgment seat whereon it had pleased the Lord Chancellor to attack him, not only in unmeasured but in gross and calumnions terms. Every person was satisfied with the statement of his Hon. and Learned Friend (Mr. Abeicromby) and that the charge against him - was nit bot tomed in fact, or justified by anything he bad said. It was im. possible for any mamo stand higher than that Hon. and Learned Gentleman, after what had passed the Lord Chancellor's lips. However warmnis (Mr. Tierney's) Arier.dship for that Hon. and Learned Member, he could not desire more for him than had taken place that evening, and there he left the question, so far as his Hon. and Leamed Friend was personally concerned. But what was to become of the calumniator ? (Cheers.) What was to be come of this Lord ( haneellor, who availed himself of his higb station so to calumniate an humble individual ? First of all be must remark, that no gentleman who had spoken had stated that he had authority from the Lord Chancellor to utter a syllable of what he had uttered. lf, indeed, the Lord ,i Chancellor was disposed to humble himself before the House, , the Right Ho mutable Secretary for Foreign Affairs was the lut mouth-piece he would have chosen (hear, bear), and it must be a :leep mortification ler the Noble and Learned Lord, that the Right lion. Gentleman whom he had arrested bean his foreign teavelealmuld bare became his defender at home. The Hon. and Learned Gentlemen (the Attorney and Solicitor General) had no authority for their statements. They alleged, that the Chancellor was imposed upon by reading a report not founded in fact ; but this was perhaps the only paper that the Lorti Chancellor had not taken, home with hint and considered (hear, hear, and a laugh,) or On which he had ever at once come to a decision. (Laughter.) The mercy of the House was implored for this Noble and Learned Lord, so distinguished fir his &wining and hesitating nature. The 1 House was besought to acquit hint in this case, not :tentage, ae in otters, he was anxious to do justice at whatever delay (hear, hear.)l but because be was n rash man. (Cheers and laughter.) He (Mt. Tierney) de fi ed the Member most conversant with the forme of the House, to show an instance where a motion had been made res spectieg a breach of privilege, and offering to substantiate the fact, , had been negatived. No excuse at a tided or Anirth hand had been' received. The party offending was called before the House and compelled to make his own apology. (Hear, hear.) When Mr.': }'urquharson, the short-hand writer, had substantiated the oflence, 1 it would then be for the Holm to consider what should be offered in mitigation. Bat before that, the party might to be heard at the bar. Could the House heti the Chancellor? No. But if they abstained from noticing the breath of privilege, it would be obi t that the insult same tram so high a quarter that they did , know how to come at it. (Cries of " hear, hear, hear.") %Viten .1 Hope had offended them, he was put to the inconvenit'nee of corn up teem Edinburgh. lie then,. at the bar, stated the impressions under which he had ted. Irritation was also part of his defence. The leouse w t he had no ituppoper motive, and they let lainfeß, ts . atioldd elvers eorreltder: vegee easily. But now the off odor was not called to the bat at aIL Why? Simply because be was the Lord Chancellor. Wear, heat) The, Attorney and Solicitor General had a tender feeling for his Lord ship (lieu, hear), and he was to be excused even from an apo. 1 logy, because he had read hastily, and given judgment rashly. ((•beers.) He (Mr. Tierney) could make great allowance fur the temper of mind In which the Lord Chancellor must have been daring the the last four years, since the agitation of the motions for inquiring into the state 'of his court. Even his amiable temper must be somewhat ruffled, when, after so long a discussion, in which so ' many charges had been preferred, and pcver answered (hear, hear), he was at last offered up as a sacrifice for his judicial sins (cheers), and,mhough affected to be still defended in the House oft'mumons by his friends, it was accompanied with the hint, that sometbing must Ye dnee to reform the abuses. • (Cheers) !hut the Hon. and Learned Gentleman (the Attorsiey-General) contended, that the; Lord Chancellor did not intend to attack others, but to defend him. self; that lie had vixen offence only accidentally (hear, hear); that it was tee paper he meant to attack and not the man (laughter). I It was eingulnr that he neva had the paper until Saturday rimm ing; and then at once having got it, he went down to his Court he gave judgment on it. Hut the paper had no gown upon its' bat. (Cheers.) The person the Lord Chancellor attacked had a gown upon his back, and he was warred how he fell into such inaccuracies. (Cries of " Hear, hear.") He (Mr. Tierney) had too much respect for the Hon. ard Learned Gentleman (the Attorney- General) to dwell upon this cavilling defence. It was clear that the Lord Chancellofteferred to the debate, and particularly to his three' ' Iron. and Learned Friends who had taken part in that debate, After this never Ice the House talk cl printers. He knew the difficulty I they had tomeet; how were they to hear the Chancellor in mit'ga- ' lira ? When the present motion wse carried, the difficulty might then be fairly cons idered. The House might then pause and re flect upon the step next to be taken. The Lord Cbancellor might , make an apology nn the bench, where it would be as public as the I offence. There might then be an end of all preceedlnga But the Lord Chancellor could not retract. If be did he was ruined as a Judge. He must in effect say, " I have affirmed rashly and without any grounds, that an henounble man had uttered *gross falsehood." It was impowdble he could make such s statement, but something I must be done. No man admired more than he (31r. Tierney) did the profound research and unquestioned Integrity of the Lord Chancellor, but he could not therefore agree to act aside the rules cf . ] Parliament to Never his escape. lie could not forget, not. withstanding all this had been said for hint, that during Ma _ - - . . . tor the offence ? (Cheers.) It you shriaX lintil paer duty, is it piesideno; In the Court of Chaireery fbr tWenty- two years, be bad \through interest or fear ? • It must be doe or • the other. I rendered it, in common parlance, • national grievance. (Bear.) For surely if an unhappy printer had taken the same liberty, no , He meant to say nothing disrespectful of the Noble Lord ; he im bounds would hare been placed to your indignation. What is the puled to him no base motives ; but if, at the end of his career—for defence of the Lord Chancellor? That he thought what my ;he must, in the nature of things, be nearly at the end—he entertained Honourable and Learned Friend had stated was false. If he did, I 1 the opinion that, without any previous inquiry, without considering i maintain it would not alter the question of privilege. In vindicating ; what pain he might inflict, or whose future prospects he might our privileges, we do not inquire whether the violator believed he I destroy, he, because he was a Lord Chancellor of 2-2 years' standing, was speaking truly or falsely. If a Member is attacked elsewhere : had the right to do as he pleased, it was time for Parliament to in fer what he has said in this House, that constitutes the breach of ' team and check him. Somebody must speak out, and on some privilege. Beyond all doubt in this case the Individual and the occasion the Lord Chancellor must be undeceived. He (Mr. T.) speech were the same alluded to by the Lord Chancellor. I admit that would appeal to the feelings of the Bar, he would appeal to the feel he fr dhoti the,mittfo-- eto read some newspaper. I will not say he logs of the House, he would appeal to the feelings of the public at .. .. - to state - ' ... - a question in rhether the - of the Court of Chancery had not led to large, w' er the practice o. , got public ince venience,and become asu bj ect of general camplain t? Well then, In consequence of such general complaint, a motion was made in the House for inquiry ; and why should that motion be answered by the head of the Court of Chancery in teems admitted Ito be rash, uncivil, anti unfounded ? If the house refused acceding to the motion of his Hon. and Learned Friend, he thought in his conscience that a most unhappy precedent would be established. People outside these doors would not draw those distinctions which were drawn within them ; and they would say that the high and the low, the rick and the poor, were not equally dealt with. What further course it might be proper to take, after the present motion was agreed to, he could not at present state; but he implored the House to consider, that if they refused to go into the facts and ex. I Fusions not denied to have been used by the Lord High Chancel lor, they would be aiming a total blow not only at their own privi leges, but at the security and liberty of the people. Ale. PEE]. said, he could by no means concur with the advice given to the House by the Right Honourable Aleinber who had just sat down. He did not see how they could take the first step proposed, and then calmly weigh what future course they 'were to take. lie considered that before such calm inquiry, they should take a survey of two questions, which were much mixed up to gether, and which he proposed to separate for discussion. The first point wan this—was any breach of privilege committed, or if any, was it such a breach as required the notice of the House? The I second was—was any attempt made to intimidate or threaten any gentleman of a learned profession, by . the Judge of any, and what Court ? Between those two questions no snfficient distinc tion had, as yet, been made; and for himself,' he was quite I free to say, that he thought the breach of privilege of much leas consequence than the attempt to intimidate or threaten.— With respect to the question of breach of privilege, it was difficult to say in how many instances they were committed in the course of almost every day. That, however, was not the question now be fore them. The question was, was there such a breach of privi lege committed as deserved to be visited with puuishment. It was quite usual for gentlemen on both sides of the House to make re ference to what took place in the House of Lords—a manifest breach of privilege, which was, however, constantly evaded by al luding to what was said "in another place." He was not quite sure if it would not be better openly to state where such and such things were said, than, by such an evasion as he had noticed, to shew the futility of the privilege. The House should not forget that this breach of their privileges arose out of another breach.,—the publi cation of the reports by the newspapers. The House had the power of enforcing its own orders—the House had the power of prohibiting the publication of the debates ; but he entirely con curred with all those gentlemen, who said tat the publication of their debates ought to be permitted; for he was sure that upon strik ing a balance between the evils and advantages arising from their publication, the advantages greatly preponderated ; still it could not be denied that great mischiefs occasionally arose from the pub lication of their debates, of which the present occasion furnished a striking and pregnant proof. Let the House fairly view this ques tion—let them consider in the present instance, that a speech was made in Parliament reflecting on the character of the highest law officer in the country, which was the next morning after its delivery wafted, not only throughout these kingdoms, but to every portion of the world in which the English tongue was known —that speech conveyed that such an elevated officer had evaded an Act of Parlia ment with a view to disparage a judge under him. If the publication of such a speech, containing such a charge. were not prevented, surely the feelings of wounded honour would arise in the breast of any man ; and he would naturally have re course of the same medium for a denial of the charge, through which it was first conveyed to the public. While the debates wen' , permitted to be published—while an unrestricted discussion was al. lowed in that House (a discussion to which he was at all times friendly)--if falsehoods were asserted under such circumstances, their public contzadiction should be allowed. In this case he be lieved that the error in the newspaper was unintentional, but yet a false representation was made of what had beets paid, and it would I be singular not to allow the accusetiehe right of vindicating himself. If, in making that vindication, intemperate language were used, this distinction should be attended to, namely, that the Lord Chan. celled' was not the party who commenced the breath, but that being aecused of a maladministration of the law, he claimed the pries. lege of an Englishman, to speak for himself, and in so speaking, had said the charges made against him were false. It would be the grossest tyranny legally to allow the publication of the debates, and yet nut allow the denial of charges to be made when they were false. The privileges of Parliament were given for the benefit of the people, and, he said, given every one as his best privilege—the right to preserve his character inviolate. (Hear, hear.) If falsehoods were published through the medium of the press, the press should be resorted to for their denial. Let gentlemen look at the course which they prescribe to themselves in debate, and it was this-..one lion. Gentleman calls. the character of Another in ques. Lion in-the coarse of debate—and, if the debate went no farther, if it were suppressed. then no man had a right to say such a gentle man acted in an unparlitunentary manner. But here they permitted the publication of the debates containing such an attack, and they could rot, in common justice, deprive the individual attacked from seeking redress, by his denial of the charge, and declaring himself not guilty: When an Hon. Member himself published his speech, the question was different; for it was held in the Court of King's Bench, that though a Member of Parliament had a right to pay what he pleased in his place in Parliament, yet that such privilege did not extend to his subsequently publishing that speech. In such a case the Alemt.er was personally responsible, and in what he (Air. Peel) now alluded to, damages were given against him. [We be lieve the Right lion. Gentleman alluded to Air. Creevey.] He (Mr. Peel) did not, however, mean to say, that because a newspaper published what was incorrect, that therefore the Member to whom it was attributed was to be held responsible for it. He meant no such thing. But in such a case the right reverted to the injured individual of seeking redress through the medium of the public press. The case of Mr. Hope had been mentioned ; and that gentleman, conceiving his character was attacked, appealed to the Member, who would, undoubtedly, if he thought proper, have a right to say to him—" I'll give you no account of what I said." But if any party so situated had persisted in demanding an account, no doubt he would be voted guilty of a breach of privilege. With respect to the case of Mr. Menzies, he made no appeal to the Alember who attacked him. He said I find a report of a speech, which contains what is false, as affecting my character. I attribute it to to one ; I do not say and Ido not care where the attack was made, and I'fl contradict the charge through the medium of the public press." Every one, however, knew that It referred to something which was said here, and yet they voted that " he had explained his conduct to the satisfaction of the Haase :" (Hear, hear, from the Opposition benches,) and he was discharged. lie (Mr. Peel) would never content to punish that as a breach of privilege which merely contradicted a speech containing en eneous statements ; he never would convict any man tinder such circumstances. Where nice legal distinctions were the subject of discussion, it was easy for the reporters to be inaccurate, without the slightest intention of misrepresenting. The Dews. mow originating the mistake mule the florl. Member (Mr. Aber. cromby) say, " it -was a rule in appeals that nothing was to be in. troduced that was not before the Court at the first hearing ; but this was done away, and another construction was put on the Act of Parliament." And if the lion. Member referred to the other pa- I pen, he would find that in none of them was there a correct report of what he did say. He tile. Peel) now implored the House to compare the accusation with the defence. The accusation was this: "Any cause that had been before the Vice-Chancellor might be again, according to the present practice, brotodit before the Chan. teller; not by way of appeal, but on rehearing, by getting the parties to furnish new affidavits, setting forth new matter. Al though the law was, that no appeal should be brought without the signatures of two Counsel, the Lord Chancellor permitted that practice, by which .a great expense was brought on the litigating parties, and great disparagement on the Learned Judge who had lust heard the cause. hence arose much of the increased business of the Lord Chancellor's Court, in permitting beiwooldtier Ws hearing by that, aastniction, or by the evaidao, dare Adt of Baia'nent." Were, than, eras I a charge made against the Lord Chancellor that he violated an Act 'I of Parliament ; whereas, in the Act of 11113, there was not a word about the signature of Counsel. When the report of such a charge was seen by the Lord Chancellor, it was natural enough for him to notice it, and he did so in this manner--" I have only to State, that having been in this Court since the year 1778, whenever a motion has been made before the Master of the Rolls, which be has refused I to allow, or which he did allow, and upon an application to the Chancellor to vary what the Muter of the Rolls had done, or to destroy it altogether; and so again whenever a motion has been Made before thence-Chancellor, and Counsel have been of opinion that the motion had bees improperly granted or discharged, the party has always, in all those cases, been at liberty to move again, with a view to set the matter right ; and if the signature Of ttonsel be necessary, to alter the practice Of the Court, as It has obtained since the period I have mentioned, all I can say is, that I have not a right to tat the King's subjects in that way."—' I Nothing could be more temperate or more correct and roper than this, as far as it went. A charge was made of the Lord Chan. I cellar", creating expense and litigation, by evading the law. And I was it not natural, when he knew it to he a false charge, that he should say so ? To say so might be technically considered a breach of the privileges of this House; but flesh and blood could not tamely sit under a charge so false and so unfounded. (Hear, hear.) It was the peculiar duty of the Jpdges of all the Courts, as was most properly stated by Lord liarderialte, that all their prtr. ceedings should stand tight with the world; and he (Mr. Peel) fully concurred in that opinion. He now came to that paragraph which contained the offensive expressions complained of e—" With respect to appeals and rehearings it is supposed that I have heard theta on new evidence, and thereby brought dieere , lit on some part of the Court. It is an utter falsehood I" Now the real question here was, Did the use of these terms constitute of themselves a breach of privilege ? Ile would not say they were very temperate expressions—but the question now to be decided was, did such a strong denial of a false charge constitute a breach of privilege ? If, in place of " utter falsehood", the Lord Chancellor had slid it was (rim:eons, he was sure the House never would have heard of this motion. The terms " utter falsehood" only applied to the report in the newspapers, and not to the Hon. Member, who was upped perly stated to have used the language contained in that report. And hedenied that it could be considered as a breach of priedep. The Loral Chancellor then went on to say, " On rehearing*, It is always competent to rte ad the evidence given in the cause, though It was not read in the Court below, either by the Counsel Or the Judge--flirflier than that, the Cowl does Hat go. On appeals, it !only reads what has been read in the Court below, and that practice I have never departed front in any one instance." The whole of this was extremely temperate. (" hear, hear—read on.") He was proceeding to read on, and he thought it unfair to triumph over half a sentence. It was a miserable and worthless victory to triumph over two lines, when in all the other parts of the Lord Chancellor's statement there weld not be found cause for any complaint. (Heat; hear.) Tins was the sentence on which vengeance was now called for —."fherefore, really, before things are so represented, pa rticniarly by Gentlemen with l eecer us their harks, they should at least take care to be accurate, for it is their business to be so.' That to be sure was not a very civil mode of expression, but ho was satisfied the Hon. Member (Mr. Abercromby) was the last man to whom the Lord Chancellor would apply them. That was the language of irritated feelings, roused by a charge admitted to be false, and it would he the height of injustice to visit it as * bleach of privilege. If it were that greet breach some gentlemen stated it to be, he could scarcely imagine that the :tight lion. Gen tleman (Mr. Tierney) would have treated it with so much levity. So much for the first question of breach of privilege. He now curie to the second question, and he would say, that if there was a dead*. rate intention to intimidate any gentleman of the hernia profesiffin e it would be a breach a the test nature ; but again be reliant' his conviction that the Chancellor had no intention of dein* so. The House had already heard, front is gentleman of high &se e meter practising in the Coot of King's Bench, with what eourtery he had always been treated by that Noble Lord; and iehm his con e duct had been so falsely called in question, it was not to be expected I jthat he should have answered it in the softest and most measure[ phraseology. It was impossible for him (Mr. Peel) to wettish that threats would have been held out to any man practising in the Courts, much less to a gentleman of the eminence and intelrity of the Hon. Member for Caine (Mr. Abercromby). The objeetable expressions were used under irritated feelings, and nothing, he tree convinced, could be farther from the Lord Chancellor's intention than a deliberate purpose of violating the privileges of this House e lor holding out threat or menace. If the House then agreed with i him (Mr. Peel) that there was no intention to violate theirprivie I leges, or to intimidate practitioners in the Court, it was bat justice i to him that they should not follow the advice of the Kt. lion. Gent. (Mr. Tierney), an advice which he himself admitted to be full of difficulties ' which he had not once attempted to solve. (Cries of " Hear," from the Ministerial benches.) Mr. TIERNEY, in explanation, said, he wished to ascertain through some authority from the Lord Chancellor himself what his real intentions were; and in that there could Deno great difficulty. Sir JAMES MACKINTOSH observed, that he should not I occupy much of the attention of the House; but he considered the subject before them as one of the moat vital impedance to the best interests of Parliament and the country. He considered a gross I breach of their privileges had been committed, and that breach ag gravated by an attempt to intimidate the members of the bar prac tising in the Lord Chancellor's own Court, because they had the honesty and the manliness, when its abuses were discussed, to give . a candid opinion. Whether the attempt to intimidate, or the reel charge of breach, was the more important, signified to him but little; but this he would ray, that if by such attempts the bar bad not lost its independence, it wail placed in danger and jeopardy, and Would be exposed to the suspicion of not daring to do its duty when an inquiry into the abuses of Courts of Justice was brought before the notice of the Ilouse. If the House did not wish to protect all its Members alike—if professional men were to be threatened and intimidated for the proper discharge of their Parliamentary duties, it were better at once to exclude them from seats in Perlis. meat. He charged it as a particular aggravation in this case, that a member of the Bar was threatened by the Lord Chancellor in his own Court, at the moment when the Legislature determined upon instituting an inquiry into its abuses. Would the Helmer endure that the Judges of this country, or any of them, should Use so much coarseness and violence to one of its own members, because he discharged one of the highest duties which society called upon him to perform ? If this breach were not now no ticed, the standing order for committees to watch over courts of justice ought to be erased ; it was a satire on their proceedings, and it would only chew how much they had degenerated from their forefathers—how much they had been unmindful of their rights and privileges. (Hear.) The Right Ilion. Gent. (Mr. Peel) like a well-practised logician, had taken some distinctions, but in his premises he used one set of phrases, in his CM:elusion another, and that with a view to enlist a degree of feeling in favour of the Lord Chancellor, to which he was not entitled. But it was no reason, because they tolerated the publication of their debate*, that they were to allow a judge, and that judge one of the Kinei Ministers, to attack a Member of this House. (Hear, hear.) Ire proportion as that Judge was great and elevated, should his conduct be viewed with jealousy. Nothing could be a more direct attack than that of the Noble Lord upon a hlemher of this House, for what he had said in his place in Parliament. The Right Hon. Gentleman (Mr. Peel) had asked, could they be so cruel as not to allow the Noble Lordto vindicate himself? lie said, No, God for bid. But then he (Sir James Mackintosh) asked, why the Lord Chancellor had not first inquired before he flung out • cbarge of falsehood upon a Member of the House, and character of his lion. Friend (Mr. Abercromby)? Suppose in a private affair such a thing occurred, would not a person first make some inquiry before he went to the last extremity ? Would he not endeavour to ascer tain what really passed,and give the person by whom he felt offende d, an opportunity of justifying or explaining his conduct? He was quite sure that what the Right lion. Gentleman (Mr. Peel) vindie aced in the Lord Chancellor, he would consider deserving of re. prehension is a red-hot boy from school, who had just put on a red cost before he took the colours. It was wilted where was the Lard Chancellor to defend himself? Any where but on the judg. ment seat—at any time hut in the absence of his Hon. and Learned Friend (Mr. Abercromby), In the other House of Parliament he cculd have defended himself. In this House he could have done so by his ttiends. Could it. be said' that the Lord Chancellor was distressed ? That he was left alone ? He had many friends in this House, who mustbe attached to him by Cc, of gratitude, to defend him. In short, the Learned Lord could have defended himself better in any othermanner, and in any other place than he had chosen. The Solicitor-General had stated some common topics in extenuation of his Lordship's precipitancy and harshness • but though extenuation mightbe a reason against their passing m j i u g{ i t i f I7eenmt, eri i ts t icno the u obeecunoa e red t , o i T e ti y tev or era,vag a ert se ins e t ten in celZit . tleasan t o o f i i n n q i u tite r a y tion i i i rq i r y e:g o d u t7 d u t i i t se b a e so mi n i a d bl t Lw t h t l l n e ti i el n w . eAc en u l rt e et r i f ag ot Caine was to have searched through all the paper containing his speech to see if it were accurately reported ? Why be taunted with not letting the Lord Chancelfor know which was most correct; but reproach the whole of the House of Commons (in the person of his lion. Friend) with laehes, and make those assumed !aches the ground of coarse invective and personal and pointed intimidation? How cruel a condemnation did this course of proceeding heap mein the Losd Chancellor ? The true question now was, did any Member deny that a breach of privilege was committed? None. Did any one deny that s false charge was made ? None. Hid any one deny that the threats and intimidation held i tit against his lion. and Learned Friend had not a tendency to destroy the comfort, the in. come, and the very existence of the practitioners in his Lardship's Court ? None. Then he asked, would the House decline entering into an inquiry ? And why would they decline it ? Because the person charged was the Lord Chancellor, and because he wished to deter the persons who had a knowledge of the Mimes in hie Court from communicating that knowledge to Parliament. (Hear.) The House of Commons had been engaged in various struggles with the Crown ; sometimes they proceeded too fat, but through all, their energy preserved the constitution, and made the people happy. Was it ever heard of before, that any chief magistrate of any Court was so presumptuous and so daring as to act as the Lord Chancellor had done on this occasion ? (Cries of " Hear.") If the House wished to abdicate its functions, they would stifle inquiry ; if they wished that no man,beesuse he was alawycr,should state his I opinions, let them reject this motion. (Hear, hear.) It was said, because his Hon. fuel Learned Friend had fearlessly discharged his duty, that he could have dreaded nothing like intimidation ; bet what would they say to a number of aspiring young men, depend ent. powerless, depressed by poverty, struggling on in what was once an honourable career—what would they say to such young wen, what were the chances of their success, if conduct like that adopted by the Lord Chancellor were to be continued ? Then, in place of talent, honour, virtue, they would have nothing but fawn.. tog hypocrisy and canting servility ; none but the base-minded ' mold rise, none but the titre-serving advance ; and he would add, that if the Hoare rejected the motion, lawyer:, would no longer be as they had been, the champions of liberty and independence, but • , the basest sycophants of every Court. (Cheers from the Opposi. ' Lion benches.) Mr. W. WYNN was reedy to admit that nothing had fallen , from the Honourable and Learned Gentleman (Mr. Abercromby) which justified the comment made upon his speech uttered en Tuesday last. There was, however, some excuse for the conduct of the Lord Chancellor, and he thought the House would be guilty of an injustice if they proceeded further on this occasion. He was well aware that in saying this he would be represented as deserting the course he had so long pursued on subjects of this nature; hat he now said, as he had often said before, that he had rather tolerate $ trivial breach of their privileges than push them terer 1 due bounds, and direct them to uses for which they never wore intended. Ile was always friendly to the fullest liberty of speech, and upon that principle it was that when an Hon. Member was attneeed for publishing his own speech, he resisted a motion white i. el for its object to vote it a breach of privilege. Still, hower:-. Ire `bed great authority far stating that it would be a breach of pri% liege tor a publisher to print what a member might say in the House. Mr. Fat bud often said so. Had the Lord Chancellor draught proper. he might have punished the proprietor of the newspaper for a contempt in mis representing his Court—but he did not - descend to such a course of proceeding—be warmly denied the charge, and strongly contradict ed that which every other man would have been wanting to himself if he did not do so. The Lord Chancellor did not state where this charge wai made ; he named no individual as the author of the falsehood ; then came his commentary, and the only part of it giving a colour to chew that he *as guilty of a breach of our pre silttges;was when he talked of persons having " black gowns On their backs." If these terms had all been used, no breach he contended would have been committed. lie was asked, was a Aleteber of this House to be attacked for stating his opinions u i c the appointment of a judicial inquiry ? and he answered No. ut if *lase Charge were made—if for instance such an o as the Lard Chaocellor was charged with evading an Act . of Parliament, for unworthy and improper purposes, he had a right to say that such a charge was an "utter falsehood."—. Ile did not think that a veil should he thrown over inquire alto.' getter, but it should be first ascertained if the words complained of were used at nil; and he viould state it most divinedy to be his opi., pion that they were not ; and therefore there could be no ground' of motion against the Lord Chancellor. It' the motion of the, lion. Member were assented to, the house would be inquiring into the corpus (Sethi', and would be putting an individual on hii trial before the bill of ffidictrrieot was found; and consequently before it was proved that any offence whatever hail been committed. With respect fo the prielleget of Her. Members, he could not perceive how thr wk. wo , n o n. n hod one a him it Hord.3l! wou, p li e d* b eruel to oFP" tin ession BP "Peß r r otest tarried, flicting 31r. ' of the in the ('Jai ticular praci Mr. 1' who WI person s duty al sides h also int did he away b .eadvice mad poi bad or leave th The the nun • For t The : 'upon th stracthl Mr. repairs, the grs to be st oppos i t Irenoti tvosent thrsen House year of not has stand t' Chami mirabi reign o prelims to give to be ii and an makini itrlCtU it obi jection which take tin r fih g e e , the no comfit be wot to krw laid ou Mr. respect arts of style wi fnto th his opir HI, and which Mr. In the e It w as r t .