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

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 hionouralele 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 righted
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 absolved 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 thew 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 SIMI 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 %III&
bacur sane
two t, other
paint is
ootaraankfooatniidigis:/tuenqeuakituyt 3,,,,
uttered' llege the awe often. re nature as Ilierd Chan-
' wilco ha `rigid 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 feelings 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
tirelean7ersion 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) defied 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 considered. 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