The Sun.
London, England, 1869-03-10 00:00:00

LORD CAMPBELL'S MISREPRESENTA-

TIONS.

Lord Campbell's biographiesof two of his most eminent
legal contemporaries have called forth a good many, criti-
cisms and censures. A fourth Lord Chancellor has now
appeared upon the scene, in the person of Lord St.
Leonards, who has just published a pamphlet bearing the
formidable. title of " Misrepresentations in Campbell's
Lives of Lyndhurst and Brougham, corrected by St.
Leonards," and the misrepresentations of which the noble
lord so indignantly complains include or affect himself.
The first complaint is, that Lord Campbell declares Lord
Lyndhurst took Lord Derby's first Government under his
special protection, " including Sugden, the new
Chancellor, hitherto an object of his special aversion."
This is certainlynot complimentary, neither is the language
in which Lord Campbell escribes Lord Lyndhurst's
panegyric of "This Functionary" as he styles the " Pro-
tectionist Chancellor," Lord St. Leonards. Lord St.
Leonards, like other politicians, objects to the stigma of
" Protectionist " being specially attached to his Dame
now that Protection has gone hopelessly out of fashion,
and he resents even the apparent praise accorded to him,
declaring that it reminds him of the phrase " H hurts
me most who lavishly commends." One passage of this
panegyric does not at present apply very well to any of
the legal dignitaries concerned. Lord Campbell quotes
from Lord Lyndhurst's zealous approval of the former
"object of his special aversion," that Lord St. Leonard,
was "distinguished by his placid temper and his mild and
gentlemanly manners." Another serious ground of offence
to " that very petulant, though very learned and able
counsel, Sir Edward Sugden, now Lord St. Leonard's,"
is the account of a celebrated passage at arms
between Lord Brougham and himself. Lard
Brougham had the inconvenient habit of conduct-
ing his correspondence while counsel were pleuding
at the bar. Sir Edward Sugden resented this, and at once
stopped speaking. Lord Campbell, in his version of the
story, says that " Sir Edward sat down in a huff,"which Sir
Edward indignantly denies. He also declares *the
"laughter and applause " mentioned by the biographer as
directed against himself to be wholly untrue. " There
could not," he says, " have been such a demonstration,"
and yet we do hear of such demonstrations occasionally,
even in these days. Further subjects of complaint arise,
including a statement which Lord St. Leonardo does not
scruple to denounce as" a malignantfalsehood." This refers
to the assertion that he was eager, for personal reasons, to
expose the inexperience of Lord Brougham as Chancellor.
Lord St. Leonards recounts how the Whig and Tory
Chancellors, long opponents, if not real enemies, shook
bands, and he " looks with displeasure " on Campbell's
life of Brougham. He tells us that when Lord Brougham
heard of his refusal to hold the Great Seal a second time
be urged him with tears in his eyes to retract that refusal.
He gives several of Brougham's letters to him at length
to shew that the rumoured dislike was unfounded. On
another ground Lord St. Leonards finds cause for die.
pleasure. Lord Campbell treats the bills of the Real Pro-
perty Commission as his own, while Lord St. Leonards
declares that one of the commissioners told him at the
I
time that " Campbell had no more to do with it
than his footman." Lord St. Leonards does not
measure his language, for he unhesitatingly denounces
another passage as "an atrocious libel." He cannot, he
says, find a cause for Lord Campbell's attacks upon Mini
unless the biographer was incensed by his opposition to
him in the Lords ou the relations of law and equity. He
ends by declaring his admiration for Lyndhurst and
Brougham, whose lives " remain to be written." A
mutual friend once said that Lord Campbell had "added
a new terror to death " by his biographies, and Lord St.
Leonards adds to this remark his own discovery that he
has added also a new terror to life, since no man can here-
after be secure that he will not be misrepresented in his

ELECTION PETITIONS.

.0- ---

Second thoughts are producing withdrawals. Two more,
petitions are to be taken off the files—Thirsk and Christ-
church—which were lately appointed for hearing. The
Blackburn election petition will be taken by Mr. Justice
Willes on Friday. The particulars furnished to the
solicitors for the respondents allege that eighteen persons
were bribed to vote for the sitting members. Five voters,
it is said, were corrtrptly treated. The names of 128 voters
are given, who, it is averred, were unduly influenced. It is
further alleged that upwards of 300 hands were dis-
charged for the purposes of intimidation at several
mills. In addition to the foregoinz. it is alleged by the
petitioners that 187 voters were bribed by being employed
as canvassers, but whose names are not yet known to the
petitioners. The counsel for the prisoners are Mr

Seymour, Q.C., Mr. 11. James, Mr. Biron, and Mr.
Marriott ; Mr. Serjeant Ballautine, and Mr. J. E. Gorst
trill represent the sitting members.

At Southampton the petitioner is Mr. Alfred Peglcr,
who alleges that the sitting members were jointly and
severally, as well by themselves as by other persons acting
on their behalf, guilty of bribery, treating, and undue
influence before, during, and after the election, that
certain polling booths were closed before the hour
appointed, that votes were refused during the hours ap-
pointed for taking the poll, and that the poll was closed
before the hour appointed by law. Personation is also
'alleged, and the petitioner clainasthat Mr. George Moffatt.,
over whom Mr. Hoare had a majority of seventeen only
was duly elected, and ought to have been returned.
The two petitions in which the opening statement has
been made are Beverley and Hereford. At Hereford, Mr.
Price is the leading counsel for the petitioners. In open-
ing the case, he said, the candidates at the last election
were Mr. Clive, who had for some time represented the
city; Mr. Wyllie, a comparative stranger ; Mr. Baggallay,
afterwards appointed her Majesty's Solicitor-General ; and
Major Arbuthnot. Mr. Clive and Mr. Wyllie
had coalesced, and so also had Mr. Baggallay and
Major Arbuthnot. The petitioners did not claim the seat.
They alleged grounds of bribery by the candidates and
their agents ; treating by agents ; use of undue influence
by agents ; and a question also arose as to the qualification
of Mr. Wyllie. With that, however, he would not then
trouble his lordship.—Justice Blackburn said the question
would not arise until the result of the petition was ascer-
tained.—Mr. Serjeant Parry said it was partly a question
of law and partly of fact. Perhaps his lordship would
decide the question of fact.—His ,ordship said at any
rate it warld have to be considered afterwards.

Mr. Disraeli's bill has not altogetner done away with
the select committee of the House of Commons. Sir
Sidney Waterlow, being a member of a firm holding
Government contract, is petitioned against, on the groune
bat a Government contractor cannot be an M.P
Instead of the matter being investigated by a judge, the
House has appointed a select committee to go into the
matter. The committee consists of the following mem•
hers ;—Mr. T. Chambers, Mr. Henley, Mr. Gathorne
Hardy, the Lord Advocate, Mr. Headlam, Mr. Brand,
and Mr, Pemberton. On Tuesday the committee met for
the first time. Mr. T. Chambers having been chosen chair
man, the agents veers called in. The agent for the petitioner.
is Mr. Graham; for Sir S. Waterlow, Mr. Wyatt. Mr.
Graham applied for the production of certain docu-
ments which might be of use to the committee—the tender
by Messrs. Waterlow and Son to the Stationery Office,
and the letter accepting that tender from the Controller,
the letters asking to be released from the contract, and
the acceptance of that release. The tender was in pos-
session of the Stationery Office. The other documents
were in the possession of Messrs. Waterlow, and it was
desirable that they should be produced by him.—The Chair-
man observed that no doubt Sir Sydney Waterlow would
be prepared to kroduce the document required.—Mr. G.
Hardy said he believed the petitioners applied to be heard
by counsel.—Mr. Graham said that was SD, and inquired
if he was to understand that the committee would order
the production of the documents for which he had asked.—
The Chairman replied in the affirmative, and announced
that the committee would meet again on Monday next,
and that they would only hear one counsel on each side.

PoMPS AND VANITIES. —The mayor of a country
town was questioning the boys at a ragged school, and he
asked them what were the pomps and vanities of this
wicked world. He asked them one by one, but they could
not tell him. At last a little boy near the bottom said,
" I know, Sir. The mayor and corporation going to church,
Sir."

THE RIGHT OF PUBLIC MEETING IN FRANCE.—
A public meeting was held on Saturday night last in the
Salle de la ThSvolution, Boulevard Rochechouart, Paris.
The subject announced for discussion was the scarcity of
employment, but the speakers wandered so much into the
domain of secialiBm that the commissary of police dis-
solved the assembly. The persons present at once made a
protest.

ATTEMPTED RESCUE OF A PRISONER AT THE
MIDDLE,Ex SE,:sioNs.— On Monday, as the prisoners
were being removed from the Sessions Ifouse to the prison-
van, for transit to the House of Correction, a man named
Richard Ilazel forced his way through the line made by the
police, for the purpose cf rescuing a man named John
Smith, who had been convicted of embezzling moneys
belonging to his master. A fierce struggle ensued between
him and the police, during which he violently assaulted
Sergeant Trawin, 3 G Reserve, and another constable.
The gates which close round the back of the van were
made secure and the prisoners taken away. Hazel was
conveyed to the Cilerkenwil Police-court, where he was
charged with assaulting the police while in the execution
of their duty, and fined 405., or, in default, to be inipri•
•
4(4141 for one