The Sun.
London, England, 1839-02-12 00:00:00

LORD BROUGHAM.

TO THE EDITOR OF THE MORNING CHRONICLE.
811t----1 have just been informed that there appeared
some days ago in your paper a report of proceedings in
the Court of Chancery, in which a barrister was re-
presented as stating that I was the author of a criti-
cll,3ln on my own speeches in the Monthly Chronicle.
crt,h's information comes to me from a gentleman at
tilinburgh (one of the Professors), who first suggested
.the Publication, and who takes an interest in whatever
relates to it.
Although I have through life refused, upon orcli-
11,arY occasions (some of which every one knows
have lately occurred), to deny reports utterly false,
wibiell reached me from time to time, and among
t 'ese, charges of having written many things which
i had never even seen or heard of, before the ru-
111°148 connecting me with them, and although I have
beep prevented from contradicting these falsehoods, by
4'o necessity which such contradiction would impose of
tver afterwards denying false statements, on the pain of
heing held to admit their .truth, nay, often of accom-
'aqing the denial with explanations and qualifications
has to my opinions, yet as a learned gentleman has been,
'Pel° the present occasion, instructed by his client to
st''te this most gross and groundless calumny, I think
i may break through my rule, without involving
1384 in a constant correspondence with the Press.
utstiall, therefore, only add that any statement more
4°Y untrue never was invented, or made by any
hrile° in any place. The fact is, that until this morn-
when the letter from Edinburgh reached me, I was
4,°t aware of the existence of the paper in question—
tuat kas yet, have never been it—that I never on any
occasion rote, or caused to be written, or did anything
e!° than often prevent from being written, any review,
or remark upon, or any allusion to any work
hmine, in any publication whatever. For the truth of
Ake only part of this assertion, which is not of a nega-
ue ,Kind, I refer to Lord Jeffrey and to Professor
aPler, the former and present editors of the Edin-
r
h Review.
Tsame letter adds that the Globe and the
tt Miner newspapers have stated that I was the
ititoor or prompter of a note in the Edinburgh
..Tiel)!elo, respecting the same publication of speeches.
I' is also absolutely and entirely false. I never
,`w that note, nor knew of its existence, nor was
twat° of any intention to write or to print it, until
read it in print, as Professor Napier can testify,
to
whom I expressed my strong disapproval of it.
I_4l„se who know me will regard such falsehoods, even
"wire they are contradicted, with the same contempt
th which
fomrey, contradiction may now make others feel. I,
might have adhered to my rule on this as I
" on so many other occasions, but whoever shows the
seesses of slander to which party or personal malice gives
P~re
in some of those connected with the periodical
es
s, renders a service to the community, aids in the
rototion of private character, by destroying confidence
th tue rash statements of anonymous writers, and raises
e character of the respectable portion of the press,
,°Y making the line more marked which separates the
:other portion from it.
I am your obedient servant,
Grafton-street, Feb. 11. BROUGHAM.