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

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 leecer 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 profesiffine
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 &see
meter practising in the Coot of King's Bench, with what eourtery
he had always been treated by that Noble Lord; and iehm his cone
duct had been so falsely called in question, it was not to be expected
Ijthat 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 Housee
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 offended,
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
mjiug{itif I7eenmt,eriitst
icno
theu obeecunoa e
red t,o
iTetiytevorera,vagaert seinsettenincelZit.
tleasan toofiinnqiutiteraytioni iirqirye:godut7du tiitsebaesominiadbltLwthtllnetiielnw. eAcenulrteetri
fagot
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 uic
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