The Sun.
London, England, 1831-02-24 00:00:00

planation. He concluded by pronouncing an eulogium
upon the Lunatic Commissioners.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL remarked that before
the Commissioners wrote the objectionable letter they
ought at least to have taken care that the foundation on
which it rested did not fail them, and that the report in
the newspaper was coreect. The Noble Lord bad fallen
into a great mistake in supposing that the editors of news-
papers were the authorised reporters of the Court of
Chancery.
Lord G. SOMERSET said, that he had not so stated
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL roust take leave to
tell the Noble Lord the reports in newspapers of the pro-
ceedings in the Court of Chancery were of no authority.
After lamenting that the lutes Soot
who was
counsel in the cause, was not present, the Hon. and
Learned Gentleman went on to state some facts connected
with the case of Mr. Houston, the lunatic, regarding
whom a person of the name of Brown, Secretary to the
Lunatic Commission, had written a letter, dated May,
1830, to the keeper of an asylum, which was given in
evidence, containing the following paragraph :—" In the
meantime I am to acquaint you that you are authorised
to de'ain Mr. Houston until you have the farther direc-
tions of the Lord Chancellor upon the subject." In the
outset of the same communication, Mr. Brown had refer-
red to the authority of Lord G. Somerset for what he had
done. This was in fact usurping the power and autho-
rity of the Great Seal, and was a most unwarrantahle in-
terference with the duties of the Lord Chancellor. It the
Noble Lord (G. Somerset) had taken the trouble to in-
quire in sources that could not deceive, he would have
found that the observations of the Lord Chancellor in his
judgment fell most heavily upon Mr. Brown ; and that
instead of throwing any imputation upon the Commis-
sioners, the very reverse was the fact. As to the letter
itself, he might say, that although the Noble Lord was
at liberty to canvass the opinions of a Judge as an indi-
vidual, yet that he had not canvassed an opinion but a
Judge. The Noble Lord must be aware how difficult it
was in matters of lunacy for the Lord Chancellor not to
advert to the conduct of particular persons, and the Howie
would observe, that the communication read by the Noble
Lord had been sent subsequent to the judgment pro-
nounced by the Lord Chancellor.
Lord G. SOMERSET remarked, that the letter was
written before judgment had been given.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL apprehended, that the
Noble Lord would find, that from want of due inquiry he
had been mistaken as to that and other facts : the decree
might not have been prepared by the proper officer, but
the decision had unquestionably been pronounced by the
Lord Chancellor. The Commissioners seemed very much
to have mistaken the situation in which the Lord Chan-
cellor stood. Whether he was right or wrong, lie was
right or wrong as Chance'lor, and was in the discharge of
his high judicial functions. He might have taken an er-
roneous view of the case—Mr. Brown might not deserve
the remarks of his Lordship ;—but it was the decision of
the Lord Chancellor, and from that the parties could re-
lieve themselves on'y by appeal. His Lordship was sup-
posed to have uttered certain expressions ; the Commis-
sioners saw them in a newspaper ; and, having taken upon
themselves to set bins tight, they required bins to make
the amende honorable, for refusing to acknowledge the
justice of their uncalled-for reproof. Certainly, this was
the first time a newspaper report had been considered suffi-
cient authority for calling a Judge of the land to account;
and if Judges were to be bound by whatever was pub-
lished in a newspaper, it would place them in a situation
which litt!e qualified them for the fair and fearless dis-
charge of their duties. Beside., the Commissioners
called upon the Lord Chancellor to do them public
justice by a public recantation—that was as much as to
say, if be did not give them the amende required
from the judgment seat, he must do it through the
medium of the press, for that other alternative only
was open to him. What was the security of Judges if
their decisions were to be arraigned on every occasion
when a paragraph appeared in a newspaper misrepresent-
ing what had occurred ? Whatever other duties might
belong to the Commissioners, it certainly was not their
business to point out to the Keeper of the Great Seal the
manner in which he ought to discharge his great func-
tions. Ile did not see what proceeding the House could
adopt upon the subject of those letters without calling the
Lord Chancellor to its bar. He was sure that if the
Noble Lord opposite (Lord G. Somerset) had made any
inquiry of the Lord Chancellor, instead of relying upon a
paragraph in the newspapers, he would have found that
the Noble and Learned Lord bad not said any thing at
which the Commissioners could properly take offence.
Mr. ROSS said that the letter bad been written on the
Wednesday before the Friday on which the judgment was
delivered. On the point, however, that the letter was
written subsequently to the judgment, the Hon. and
Learned Solicitor-General had rested his principal argu-
ments. He (Mr. Ross) agreed with him that it would
have been exceedingly improper for any persons to call the
deliberate judgment of any Judge into question. Such a
proceeding could only be warranted upon very serious
grounds. But the Commissioners had not called the
judgment of the Lord Chancellor in question. What they
complained of was, that the Noble and Learned Lord
had taken occasions, in delivering a judgment, to cast
imputations upon persons who were not present, and who
had no means of vindicating themselves. Besides, his
Lordship had previously known officially that the Com-
missioners had disclaimed any participation in the circular
of Mr. Brown. They bad not relied upon newspaper
reports alone, for they bad been assured by persons who
were present in Court at the time when the Lord Chan-
cellor gave the judgment, that the words attributed to Lis
Lordship in the newspaper reports were substantially the
*awe as those which be bad used. Besides, before be
(Mr. Ross) saw the report in the newspaper, he had re-
ceived, from persons who had heard the Lord Chancellor,
an account of what he had said ; with which the report,
which he afterwards saw in the newspapers, agreed in
substance, though not verbatim ; so that it could not be
said that he had relied upon the newspapers. He felt
that the Commissioners had a right to complain, when
the only answer which they received to their letter to the
Lord Chancellor was a menace of committal to prison ;
and far from bring ashamed of the part which he (Mr.
Ross) bad had taken in the matter, he thought his Noble
Friend (Lord G. Somerset) was called on to bring it be-
fore the House in Isis own defence, and for that of his
brother Commissioners.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said, that with all re-
spect to the Hon. Commissioners, be must question the
right of gentlemen to call into question any Judge for
what he Lad said deliberately in his judicial character.—
(Hear.) As to what the lion. Gentleman opposite had
foist said, that the complaint of the Comrniteioners had not
been fhunded on the report in the newspapers, bait upon
something which they had learned elsewhere, he (the
Attorney-General) roust observe that such other informs- •
tion was not alluded to in the letter to the Lord Chan-
eellor. He did not think it was the proper course for the
(aornmissior:ers to call the attention of the Lord Chsan-
caller to the paragraph in the newspapers, whilst they •
made no mentiors to him of the information upon which,
in reality, they weac acting._(Hear, hear.) He was
sere that enough had been said to allow that there had
Leen fault somewhere, and he thought that his Lord-
ship was warranted in the observations which be had
made respecting the conduct of Mr. Brown. life re-
gretted that the discussion had taken place, because it
necessarily led to personal animadversions. But other-
wise he should have been glad of it, because it gave
publicity to the intention of the Lord Chancellor to
exercise his just power for the benefit of the suitors
in his Court, without regard to the feelings of in-
dividuals or to personal opposition.—(Hear, hear.)--
In the judgment which had given rise to the complaint of
the Noble Lord opposite (Lord G. Somerset), not one of-
fensive word had been used, unless it were to be coe.aidered
offensive that the Lord Chancellor had exercised the right
which belongs to every Court, of resisting all interference
with its judicial functions.—(Hear.)
Lord G. SOMERSET explained.
After a short conversation, in which Mr. Gonnox, Mr.
La ash, and the ATTORNEY-GENERAL took part, leave was
ileven to bring in the Bill.
Mr. RICE moved, " That the House, at its rising, do
adjourn to Friday next."—Agreed to.
The Etection (Irel Ind) Bill was read a second time and
ordered to be committed on Friday se'rusight.
Mr. O'GORMAN MAHON presented a petition horn
Stephen Fitzgerald, complaining of having been transported
under the Insurrection Act.
Mr. ELLICE thought that notice ought to have been
given to the Goverment, in order that lin uir :Molt have
been made into the circumstances of the
After a few words from Mr. O'Goa-staPer Moss n.
nos'
Mr. SHAW moved that the House be counted; and there
only being twenty-one .Members presew, the
House ad-
journed at a Quarter to Nine.

The new work entitled the " Historical Tra-1
Yeller," by Mrs. GORE, will form we understand not only
a valuable present to young persons, but an agreeable ad-
dition to every travelling carriage. It combines a geo.
graphical notice of the chief cities of the continent, with
extensive details of their historical destinies• The history
of the Italian Republics, for instance, is advantageously
compiled for the use of those who are unwilling to under-
take the voluminous wet"; of Sls3tPlcDl.