The Sun.
London, England, 1824-03-02 00:00:00

same means.—(Cheers.)—The report of the speech of the Hon.
and Learned Gentleman to which the attention of the House had
been called, contained such charges as he had alluded to. They
had, he believed unintentionally, been attributed to the lion.
and Learned Gentleman, and the Noble and Learned Lord who
was the subject of them had given way to feelings which could
not but be natural under such a charge. lie had claimed that
privilege as an Englishman, which, in his judicial character, he
had so often .extended to others-ethe.right of being heard in his
defence. He had said he WaR not guilty ; 01, if they pleased, he
had, in less measured language, said that the charge was false.
It would be the grossest tyranny if the publication of debates
were allowed, and no answer were to be given to any thing
contained in them.—(Hear, hear!)—They were told that they
held their privileges for the benefit of the people of England,
who might say with the Hon. and Learned Gentleman himself,
" Attack my person or my property, but for God's sake leave
my character secure."—So he (Mr. Secretary Peel) said;
(Cheers)—but if no opportunity were to be allowed to repel
an attack ; if an individual were not to be allowed to re-
sort to the press, through which he received the injury, :to
deny the accusation which he felt to be unfounded, where
would be the security for character ?—(Continued cheers. )—Let
them establish the ancient prerogatives of the House, and not
eillow the publication of the debates, and then no man would
have it in his power to call in question what passed in the House.
But surely so long as that was not done, it was not common
justice to prevent an individual, not from seeking redress,
but from pleading in answer to an accusation, Not Guilty '
When a Member of that House thought proper to publish a
speech he had delivered there, the Courts of Law told him that
his privilege • did not protect him against prosecution for the
contents of it, and damages were awarded against bins. He
was aware of the distinction in this case, for the Member did
not here publish the statement himself ; hut he had only ad-
duced the, case he had just referred to, to shew how wide
the difference was between what a Member had said in
that House, and what was published forth to the world
in his name. Again he contended, that tinder such circum-
stances it would be the height of injustice to deprive an
individual affected by such publication of the power of de-
nial. The case of Mr. Hope had been referred to. That case
varied from the present. Conceiving that something had been
.said reflecting on his character, he referred to the Member to
know if he.was the author of it. Be was aware that he was
treading on ground where personal feelings might be wounded ;
but he wished to take only that part of the case which connected
it with the House and the question then before it. The Hon.
Member replied, or he might have replied, for so this House
had assumed, that he was not responsible to any person for
what he uttered in that House. Under these circumstances the
House did not hesitate, to vote it a breach of its privilettes.—
Let them, however, mark the difference in the case of Mr.
Menzies. He had made no appeal to the Member. He said,
that he found such a statement in a newspaper—he did not
refer to where it cause from, or where it was uttered ;. but
simply confined himself to contradict the report. The House
then feeling that it had not prevented the injustice being done,
by not preventing the publication of its proceedings voted,—
" That Mr. Menzies having explained his conduct to the satis-
faction of the House, be excused from further attendance." In
these instances it would be observed, the House had distinctly
recognized the mitigating circumstance of the publication tole-
rated by itself. He was ready to suppose the Hon. and Learn-
ed Gentleman could prove all lie had put forward, and still he
should say, under the circumstances, that House could not
proceed to any thing implying condemnation. The subject in
question, wherein the error had been made in •reporting. the
Honourable 2nd Learned Member's observations, was itself
a most complicaied one—one, indeed, which it was scarcely
possible for any but a professional man to understand.—The
real state of the case was this : Motions from the Vice-Chan-
cellor's Court might be heard before the Lord Chancellor with-
out the signature of Counsel to an application to that effect.—
But re-hearings and appeals could not be had without signature
of Counsel. It was merely required that the same evidence
which was produced before the Courts below, whether read by
the Judge or not, should be produced upon the re-hearing. The
House would readily see how very easy it was for a newspaper
reporter to make a mistake in a matter of suds nice distinctions.
—He was sure that if the House were to refer to all the papers
which contained a statement of what the Hon. and Learned
Gentleman said On the night in question, they would find that
,
it was not correctly given in any one; so that had his Noble
Friend, when the paper was handed up to him as containing a
correct
onlyreporth
aov f what passed, compared it with the others be
would
e found it confirmed.—(The mis-statement was
not contained in the Morning Porto The Right Honourable
Gentleman referred to the columns of the Morning Herald, and
read that part of the speech of Mr. Abercomby which was
ferniiplained of. Here, said the Right Hon. Crentleman, was a
-•diatamet charge against the Lord High Chancellor of England of
having evaded, forlhat was the word, an Act of Parliament.
Now what would theelionse,eay, when they found there was no
such provision as stated in this paper in the Act of Parliament?
;Yee here, was a newspaper putting this .charge into the mouth of
,7speeptyerombY! a Gentleman practising in the Court of Chen-
aiieihd'Aileenber of that House ! And WaSrit'not-natural,
not to "liisieneeesierye • that the Lord Chancellor shoulslitn,semr,
moderately colielk, I.thVehreen
such an. accusatioaes :
getage in, which that answer. weelnade, he confessed, althotgh'
there might*,
is es
nothing
referredothng tt oo
etihceitteoneanllan-SPme one expressiorewhich might have been more
'
disapproba-
tion. His Noble Fiiend.hed.said that such and such things had
been represented of him in the practice of, his Court. This he
denied, saying it had never been the practice of the Court, and
that he did not think himself entitled to tax the King's.-subjects
to such an extent. Now nothing could be more becomiqg in
the mouth of an individual in the situation of his Noble Fesend.,
and he was sure that the Hon. and Learned Gentleman, had he
not been acting .under the influence of those feelings:which he
could well mute in him, would not have brought forward the
motion then under discussion. The Honourable and Learned
Gentleman, he was sure, would be the first to make Allow-
ance for feelings by which the Lord Chancellor must have been
impelled when he saw himself thus charged as • being the
cause of increased expence and litigation . in the Court
over which he presided, and with having actually evaded
nhear !)—as it possible for
acommonAct offlesh I}t
andlia, belnot—dt ia W
e
resist giving, an answer to such un-
founded charges?—(Hear, hear !)—He knew that Lord Hard-
wicke laid it down as the duty of a Judge under such circum-
stances. His words were—" There is no one duty more, im-
perative on a Judge than to set the Acts of his Court right
with the world." His Noble Friend then had promptly and
plainly said, "it is an utter falsehood." tes to whether this
was a breach of privilege or not, he confessed he entertained
serious doubts ; for it might be reduced to a denial expressed
in strong terms. Supposing that- his Noble Friend had
said, " this is completely erroneous," he believed that House
would never have heard any thing of the matter. Instead of
that, however, he had said, "it is an utter falsehood." .As
applied the Honourable and Learned Gentleman, no one was
more ready than himself to say such an expression was
totally misapplied. As apislied to the Newspaper, it was
perfectly correct. But he denied that the terms in which the -
denegation was expressed was any aggravation of a breach of
privilege. The whole tenour of his Noble Friend's observations
was moderate—(Cheers from the Opposition.)—He complained
of this unfair interruption whilst in the middle of a sentence, at
the same time that he could not think this miserable worthless '
victory over half a sentence worth claiming. lie was about to
add, that the expressiOn of" Gentlemen who have gowns on their I
backs," was that which was opposed to the tone of the other part
of the paragraph. The expression was certainly not a polished
one; but it was obvious that it was employed to signify pro- +
fessienal men, and had no sort of reference to the lion. and •
Learned Gentleman. It was conceived in the height of irrita-
tion, and it would be the greatest injustice if the House were
to proceed to pass deliberate censure upon it under all these
circumstances. The Right Hon. Gentleman (Mr. Tierney)
who had spoken last, would not, he was sure, have introduced
so much merriment into the discussion, had he considered that it
deserved the calm and grave consideration of the House. The
next branch of the question was, whether his Noble Friend had
pursued a course calculated to intimidate the Hon. and Learned
Gentleman in the the discharge of the duties of his profession.
That he should consider ten times more important for the in-
terference of the House than the other matter charged. But
• such a disposition on the part of his Noble Friend, in his gene-
ral conduct, no one seemed to attribute to him. They had
heard from the Hon. and Learned Gentleman opposite (Mr.
Scarlett) himself, an eminent Counsel of the Court of King's
-Bench, that the Lord Chancellor always treated him with the
greatest justice, impartiality, and even courtesy. Vet that
Honourable and Learned Gentleman never thought it at ail
necessary to withhold from the House his strongest expres-
sion upon the subject of Chancery affairs when before the
House. The passage complained of in his Noble Friend's
speech proceeded from the spur of the moment, whilst tinder
irritated feelings. In the expression then used, he was con-
vinced there was no premeditated intention of violating the
privileges of that House; and above all, no intention of con-
veying a threat to any professional Gentleman. If then the
House agreed with him in thinking the mode of denial was no
aggravation of a breach of privilege, and that it was not in-
tended to intimidate, they would not take that step which the
Right Hon. Gentleman (Mr. Tierney) opposite told them would
place them in the midst of difficulties, for which even he could
not see one mode of extrication.—(Continued cheers.)
Mr. TIERNEY said that he had not proposed that the
House should put itself in a situation of increased difficulty,
but that it should take a step in the midst of its present dif-
ficulties which would admit of some mode by which the Lord
Chancellor might disavow to the House any intention of in.
fringing their privileges.
Sir J. MACKINTOSH believed, that if the House should
be induced to reject the 1120tiOn it would be most fatal to the

independence, character, and even Con ;titution of that House'
Its effect would be to intimidate Gentlemen at the Bar from
performing their duty to the people in Courts of Justice, and
what was of still more importance to that House, from perforin-
ing freely and fearlessly their duty to the public within those
if they happened to be Parliament.--(Ileac:)
If of Parliament.-:l
t
If it did not rob them of their character for independenceot
most certainly would place them in a light very likely toYe
viewed with suspicion. In fact, it would become a consideration
of importance whether the House should not exclude persons is
the profession so circumstanced from seats in that Asses-au"-
The circumstance of the complaint having been made of the
conduct of the highest Judge in the highest Court of the
country, ought to he a reason for stricter investigation. 1"r
would it be endured that even so high and exalted a Magistrate
should arraign with falsehood in a tone of violence and coarseness
a Member of that House whilst declaring his sentiments within
its doors. If such were their situation, it was a mockery
.t°
talk of the constitution of that House, or of its right to inquire
into abuses in Courts of Justice, which stood amongst its stand-
ing ;_•;essional (niters.—(Hear!)—As to the publication of the
debates, he would ask, would the House, though it permitted it'
debates to go forth tier the advantage of the public, and so far
connived at a breach of the Standing Orders, would it go so far.
as to tolerate or endure calumnious attacks on a Member 0,
that House, because lie.had taken an hostile part in a discuasie9
relative to the conduct of one of Ills Majesty's principal Minis-
ters ?' The case of Mr. Menzies was not in point, for there the
usual disguise had been adopted under such circumstances, alb;
he had not affected to treat the remarks of his Hon. and Learned
Friend (Mr. Abereromby) as a speech in Parliament, or anY
thing else than as a. printed paragraph in a Newspaper. Blt
the Lord Chancellor was above such a disguise. The Noine
Lord did not even condescend to inquire" whether the language
imputed to his Hon , and Learned Friend was-in point of fact
used by him; a precaution which the Right Hon. Secretary
opposite would, after having spent six years of his life in a..
country remarkable for their high sense of honour and value 0,
character, have condemned a youth emerging from school 10
the possession of a pair of colours, had he neglcctgd to observe
it, as a fimdamental.rule, before things were brought to any.s;e-
riosiA alteration amongst gentlemen. But here the improprie-y
or offence, to say no worse of' it; was heightened by its beir4
part of a speech delivered in the judgment seat. Why had it
not been reserved for production in his place in the House of
Lords, or was he so weak in the number of his friends, or per,
sons attached to bins through affection or the remembrances of
past favours sofew in that House that he would not trust him-
self to their defence? The whole of the speech of the Hom
and Learned Attorney-General was extenuative, and so far was
out of place, because it had been introduced at an improper
stage, and with a view to interrupt inquiry. He would seriouslY
ask the House if any one still denied that a breach of privileq
had heea•cominitttd, and that the present was a false charge;
Did it not assume the most serious character, inasmuch as it
charged the Lord Chancellor with impeding and deterring the
Members of that House who happened to he at the Bar from
the exercise of their duty, who happened to be the persons
best qualified to follow up the inquiry that night pending
relative to the conduct of that Judge, in deferring justice ?---
The House of Commons had risen into the confidence of the
people by its having been successfidly engaged for a long period
of years in great struggle with the Crown ; and to its success
might be attributed that we were now a great and certainly the
happiest people on earth. In the whole course of those struggl
he would ask, but any lawyer or judge before dared to impugla
a Member for the sentiments he uttered in his place in Parlia-
ment ? If it was then the duty of the House to prevent anY
Judge, however respectable, from impeding any Member of
the Bar and Senate from the free exercise of his privilege in
Parliament, be argued that there were other considerations
which should render the House jealous of such an interference
with young men at the Bar, whose comparative 'poverty or de-
pendence on the smile or frown of a Judge - might possibly in-
duce thern to aspire to honours in their profession, or seats on
the benches of justice, by submitting to. become the degraded
sycophants of men in power. For these reasons he should moss
cordially support the motion.—( Applause.)
Mr. WYNN observed, that whatever difference of opinias
there might be in other respects, all seemed to agree in this
that no stigma could be cast on the Hon. and Learned Gentle-
man who had introduced the motion. What was attributed to
the Lord Chancellor, was, in his opinion, no more than a con,"
meat on what aroearei in a newspaper, which it would be
He
e
he
the -highest injusticetcaopitso)ot.uer,ianisrvctlpeleeniaiipliw,ltekeer(
eosei:aid:seetdtitiolroateiefieffxanidbtp:it breach,rihlanrileaeeeatyas.sssiiiicsii,n)hd::rodeoeihus:Loiieitstssfihreeedtprvei of rivilege.
ga3iyihs
nthgrau,
hade.
lugdalrellseidldd:
Member
ntpr:rhgeooetta:::
otohoorafs,atuatvweei.
delivered
evavisi
ritnei
privilege
gt
oe:
sadetoceitipaiitti:
eno,unut,ri,imbtreohil?itaotsbnaahthstriseesillicwmici
nwmuool
et,
e:2sreientliser
and published by himself. It was on that occasion generally
e
version. Mr. Fox had said dat it might he his duty to use 101?;
make him a fit object for prosecution. It seemed to be ad-
mitted that if the Lord Chancellor had said, alluding to cersoli assertions which had • been made, that whosoever ',Jess h`"
said so was guilty of utter falsehood, no man would he_avf
celled itta breach of privilege. Was the oiniSsion then of tills
%msy .veil to make the lioxise treat the matter as a bread
of privilege which otherwise it would not ? It was to barmen-
bered that this was not ail attack, it was a defence. The Ho-
nourable and Learned Member for Peterborough (Mr. Scar-
lett) had suggested the oddest way in the world of avoiding the.
present dilemma. He said the Lord Chancellor ought to have
sent for the Hon. and Learned Gentleman, and asked him if he
did use the expression imputed to him. Had he pursued such a
course, the Hon. and Learned Member himself would have
beeir the .first to have asked the House if they would submit to
the Lord Chancellor of England calling before him a Member
*of that House, and catechising him as to his conduct in the
House.—(Hear, • hear?)-.lf the House were to adopt his mo-
tion, it would give the deepest wound to their privileges, and
the greatest shake to their authoritythey had ever encountered.
—(hear, hear!)
Mr. SCA RLETT :explained, that he had siiggisted the
Chancellor's sending for his Hon. -and Learned Friend, and
stating that he could not believe he had used the expressions-in
question, because they were inconsistent with the practice of
the Court.

Mr. W. WILLIAMS thought that the House ought to
agree to the motion before them,for the purpose of examining
whether any breach of the privileges of that House had been
committed. If they were to do that, it would give the Lord
Chancellor an opportunity of explaining, through the mouth of
a friend, the meaning of the language he had used. Any other
course would, in his opinion, endanger
.the existence of their
privile
fles•—((`,ries of Question.")
Mr. ABERCROMBY'repIied. His first duty, he said, was
to make his acknowledgment to every Member on the other
side of the House, who had come forward to bear testimony to
the misrepresentation of his sentiments, He had, therefore,.
by general concession, both grounds to support his motion
upon. He might, he was aware, have pursued a different
-course from that he had adopted. He might have treated the`
transaction as one entirely personal to himself, and in that case
have been permitted to make his own statement to the House.
In that case, however, he was advised he must shew that there
was a breach of privilege.. He felt he had one other duty to
perform, by which he had been strongly influenced—he meant
his duty to the profession of which he was a member. Under
these conflicting views he had taken the counsel of those in.
whose experience he placed entire confidence as to the course
he should pursue. Be had adopted the present one : and he
still remained of opinion that it was both wise and, prudent-
He should make no further observations in support of it, leav-
ing its fate to the decision of the House.
The House then divided :
For the motion - -
Against it - • - - - -
Majority against the motion - -
MISCELLANEOUS :ESTI:a A TES.
On our return to the Gallery we found the House in a 00 11l .•
mittee of Supply, to which the Miscellaneous Estimates of t
year had been referred.

dti

Mr. HERIZIES moved the Resolutions for the different
votes, holding himself prepared to im,:wer any questions that
might be put hint. The lion. Ge.mleman first moved,
" That the sum of 40,0001. be granted to his Majesty to defray
the expellees under the head of Works and repairs of Public
Building .„
Mr. BANNES asked if this vote included some repairs and
alterations going fdrward in the neighbourhood of that House?
Mr. 11 EliltlES.—Yes.

Mr. BANKES wished to take this opportunity of 'referring
to the unsatisfactory way in which, those repairs were con-
ducted.— (H ear !)—He moved for the accounts of these repairs,
in order that they might know how far they had gone,. and,
what was to come behin-.1. Be would not do this, however, if
it would interrupt the progress of public business.
Mr. H. G. BENNET considered the application of the
money hitherto expended as complete wmte, which had the
misfortune of carrying with it shame and disgrace to the nation
which had so applied it.
Mr. BERRIES said, that 5,8001. had been expended on the
works alluded to. He would take care that the House should
have the accounts before them.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said he was,.
not surprised that the subject should attract the attention 0.
the House. He was decidedly of opinion that some alteration
ought to take place in the mode in which works of this kind had
hitherto been done.—(Hear, hear!) —The architect was jr.
Some, and the authority under which he acted was that of the
Board of Works, and be confessed that he did think it desirable
that the real, essential, and substantial responsibility of con-
ducting works of this nature should lie vested in the Treasury.
hear !)—At present it WL$ not, and they had no con-