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

rot affixed ; sole (31r. Abercromby) saW too; and he called be
attention to the omission of signatures in the cares of renewed mo-
tion. as contrasted with the practice that prevailed with regard to
appeals. Although such may have been the practice formerly, the
institution of the Vice-Chancellor's Court was a ground fur altera-
tion in the practice. It should be borne in mind, that the Master
of the Rolls did not hear special motions—if he were not correct is
saying so, the Solicitor-General would corr hon. [The Soli-
citor-General intimated anent seems the table. There was there-
fore no ground for likening the practice which Prevailed before the
institution of the Vice-Chancellor's Court. to that which abould
have prevelied after its establishment.. as the Vice-Chancellor en-
tertained special motions, and the Master of the Rolls did not.
—ln stating this matter on d former night, he bad only said
that it was a fide subject of Inquiry, and that the Commissioners
ought to direct their attention towards it. This custom presented
a new stave of feces, and on new Matter was the decision of the
Lord Chancellor formed. It had Ken also attributed to him that
he had referred to "an Act of Parliement which dhected that rid
appeal should be heard on new evidence," and that he had ap-
plied it to motions first heard before the Vice-Chancellor, and after-
wards referred to the lend Chancellor. He (Mr. Abercromby), on
the contrary, had even contrasted the propriety of the practice in
WC'S of apace) and in cases net down for further directions, with
the practice as regarded motions ; so that the Lord Chancellor not
only attributed expressions to him which he did not utter, but even
rvcrscd what he did say. (Hear.) Signatures of counsel were dis-
pmsed with when the blaster of the Rolls had but very few motions
before him, and when there was no A'ice-Chancellor's Coup.
Therefore with the chanire of system there ought to be an improve-
ment also ; and some regulation should be introduced which would
prevent persona torn takings casein': of thehands oftheViee-Chan-
cellar, because his decision did not please the disappointed suitor,
and bringing it before the higher Court. These were the opi-
nions which stated on a fornier night ;he entertained them ; the
exp n of them was a duty that be owed the country, and for
at his duty was he represented as a degraded
cheesed; mid ass person who had Obliged hisesat in Parliturent.
When and where did the Lord Chancellor speak thus of me ? Wu
I present? lkiore *hoot did he say so? Before those who, if he
had not a farthing but what he derived from professional pursuit",
would effeet his ruin. To whom did he sneak thus ? To reporters
who, before the ink was dry with which they had taken down the
expression, sent forth to the public this charge and imputation on
my character? And who was it he toak an opportunity of thus
calumniating? An frdnible member of his own profession, to
whom his observations were likely to be peculiarly prejudicial and
injurious. If he (Mr. Abercromby) had been present, and heard
the expression of the Lord Chancellor, he bored that he would
have felt te; scnaitively to have remained alto ether silent ; yet if'
he attempted to speak to explanation, or in vindication of his conduct
it would have been before one who had the power of preecnting him
from doing so. If he persisted, the Lord Chancellor might fir.
thee exercise his power' and commit him to the Fleet. Thus he
would have been left defenceless; and if this House would not
afford redress and protection to hint, he was at a loss to know front
what source he was to expect it. If there was a complaint that
due caution had tint been observed, front whom, he would ask, wax
most caution requisite? whether from him, in the statement he had
made, and the cerrectnees of which he was prepared to substantiate,
or in the Lord Chancellor, who had impeached its fidelity ? If he
was wanting in caution in any statement he had made, he stood
there in that !louse amongst his equals, where, if he had advanced
say thing that was false a inaccurate, there were many about him,
his superiors in ability, who would be ready to confute and bring
hill to shame. Brit how different was the situation of the Lord
Chancellor, who had sought, on the seat of justice, to calumniate
sad destroy his fame before the profession of which he was a mem.
bet, and that too in a place and at a time where the accused party
had no right or opportunity of reply. And where could he final
satisfaction for the injustice rendered hint, if denied it here? Was
he to appeal to the Court of Chancery, and expose himself to the
delays of weeks, and even perhaps years, which delays were attri-
buted to an :liable infirmity, and anxious sensitiveness in the
mind of the Noble Lord who presided there. War he to wait for
the filing of bills and supplemental bills, and patiently wait the
termination of proceedings which would probably never have an
end ? From whom did he learn that he (3lr. A.) made the state.
meat which induced the Lord Chancellor to impute a falsehood to
him ? There were legitimate persons to whom he might have ape
pealed, and who he was sure would have accurately informed boa
a what he said, and who would not have entertaiutd such a state-
ment as formed the subject of his censure. Had he applied to the
Honourable Member for Tewkesbury or Exeter, he would not have
ban supplied with information that conld have warranted such a
charge. But supposing that he had made the statement, anti that
even it was (as it was not), incorrect, what right or authority had
any Judge to interfere with the privileges of debate in that House?
If such a right were tolerated or allowed, if such a controul over
their opinions ras exercised by a Lord Chancellor or Lord Chief
Justice, what Member of that Home, who was of his profession,
could fearlessly discharge his duty to the ? What protection
as there for a Barrister in that House, if a Judi-e were perm-teed
to be at liberty to animadvert, according to his caprice, on the si n-
I demon' which in the discharge of his duty, he had expressed „he
I preceding night in that House ? If the injustice arising from such
presumption were strong in his case, how much stronger would it be
in the case of Barrister, who practised in the particular Court of the
Judge who had indulged in such animadversions ? And still more
strong again would it be, if the subject, as in the present instance,
narrowly affected his own feelings.. A young man of aspiring
hopes and unblemished character might be thus extinguished, and
his prospects in life for ever blasted, if such tyranny and despotism
were permitted to prevail. In what consisted the privileges of that
House, if such annnadversion and such calumny of one of its
blembers, for the discharge of his duty, were now permitted to
pass unnoticed ? And what must be the effect of his motion, as
regarded members of (he bar in that House, but to intimidate
them in the discharge of their duty. and, as regarded the bar
generally, to convert them from a useful body into a spirit-
less class of men, ready to surrender their rights and lay
them prostrate at the feet of the Lord Chancellor of England ?
if he made a thousand false statements, he would still contend
that it would not warrant or justify the manner in which the Lord
Chancellor had commented on his statement. He had invaded
the privileges of debate, and the adoption or rejection of his mu-
tion would determine whether this House was disposed to abandon
or maintain those privileges lie had now detailed to the House
the manner and the place in which this calumnious charge had been
made against him ; he had re-stated what he had said on a for-
mer night, to shew that it did not justify the accusation ; and he
had brought it before the House, in obedience to the duty which he
felt he owed to his own character, to the privileges of that House
of which he was a Member, and to the independence of the Ear.
(Haar, hear.) He would at present confine himself to a preliminary
motion which, if acceded to, must be followed up by ulterior pro.
endings which would tend to prevent the recurrence of a similar
breach of the privileges of that Home as that of which he had that
night occasion to complain. He would, for the present, conclude,
by moving that " Mr. Farquharson, of 133, Strand, be directed to
attend at the Bar of this House to-morrow."
Mr. CANNING mid, that he was ready to go as far as any of
the friends who surrounded the Honourable Gentleman, in admit-
ting that the expression of which he complained must have natu-
rally excited his indignation. He was also ready to admit the ter.
lent and moderation with which he satisfactorily vindicated him-
self from its applicability to him. As far as his recollection of the
debate on a former evening served him, he thought it similar to
the statement which he had made that evening to the Home. As
he was an unlearned person, he was not able to follow the Hon.
Gentleman through the several legal distinctions he had draw n,
but what he stated this evening was what lie understood him to
state on the night that the debate alluded to took place. The Hon..
Gentleman then did not, in his opinion, go out of his way in his
address to the House ; but the tendency and effect of his obser-
vations appeared to him not to impute individual blame, but to
censure a faulty system. (Ileat, hear.) Such was his general jos-
presaion, and if his testimony was referred to, in reference to the
speech of the lion. Gentleman, it would go to sustain the accuracy
of his statement, and to colucide hi the opinion that he did not
indulge in any observations which went beyond the fair license
of discussion. But whilst he went so far, and whilst this
was his consciousness of what had fallen from the Honourable
Gentleman, and whilst the confidence of the Honourable Gentle.
man himself was so strong as to the accuracy of his statement, yet,
notwithstanding that consciousness and that confidence, he must
remind him that there was one important link in the chain of the
transactions which he had dropped it was the manner in whiclt
the communication of his observations was made to the Lord
Chancellor ; for if the channel through which they were conveyed
was an incorrect report, the observations of the lionourable Mem-
ber were made liable to a perverted meaning. Whilst he disclaim-
ed ability on his part to perceive the discriminative effect of the
differences discussed, the merits of which those who were acquainted
with the practice of the Court could better understand, he was
sure that nothing had fallen from the llon.3leinber calculated to give
offence. But in the report which was given to the Lord Chan-
cellor of his speech, a colour was given to it calculated to excite a
similar feeling of indignation in the mind of that Noble Lord
which the Honourable Gentleman had that night expressed, and
for which he (31r. Ca ring) had node not an ungenerous allow.
ante. '. hen an accusation was made against any individual whirls .
he believed to be unjust, it was natural for that individual, be he s
high or he he low, not to put tip with it in quiet, but to set himself
right in the opinion of the world with regard to it. Itati error has
occurred in the present instance through the report communicated
to the Lord Chancellor, we wcreourselves to blame for it. It had io
arisen from a faith, or rather a connivance, of our own. Did he
wish to correct it', No ! tor although inconvenience might become.
times conserptent upon it, et- was convinced of the great benefit
which the country derived from the practice which had been pro-
ductive of :he present misrepresentation. It should be borne in
mind, however, that in debates in that House, which related :o
character, the utmost accuracy was requisite; the slightest varlet ice
of phrase, the smallest intentional error. might alter the whole •
meaning and import of the speaker's sentiments, might harrow up •.
the feelings of the most honest man in the country, and impute
hthiaprinciples to him which in his heart he disdained:anztotire(ect.Horeiwmaaript.
jhohnenadtarii,
anii.st)hanat‘dilt'ashhaltit):ualeihiebinrscihiolu:nignseehtk;hesa.nd"adirrwnihonysirteiraellns"nitj
should be convinced that he did so than those who frequented his
Court, and over whose proceeding/ he daily presided ? When as

1

_ .
I,
. .
, •
________Th A*
,i
. ~ • _.
•
; 11/4.-1:,
. .
•
-: - Tow.--................ 2..: • . *-- -...--,.• .. , i
. :t.\:,.- • .4.11
, \
. • 4... A
.. ...
. , . , :4,, ... •.... . ~. .
. k t
... k
Price id.
........._....,), ,
. .. . . . ..1