Star.
London, England, 1824-03-02 00:00:00

nersra who had gone out of his way to around thefeele
logs of the Hon. Member. He being charged in his
judicial capacity with improper conduct in that Court,
took this opportunity when on the Bench to sepal the
attack made on him in such aoway' that he might be
taken as saying, " I am not going out • I the way to
take exceptions or calumniate: but this I say, I am not
guilty; or, if you will, the assertion is 'reed) false."
There certainly was due to the Hon. Member, in his-
capacity as a Member of that Home, a Degree o invio• .
lability of character, and he naturally resolved within
himself to defend that c:etrecter. IVhar mean , it might
be asked, had the House to effect that object? It was
true that any man might-get hp in his piste, aed put
lellawa the publication of what transpired within tai it
rl House. If the House did so, then there was an r.•; Auf
lit at once; but whilst the publication was connived
or per mined, those debates, or any particular persim's
sentiments' will be .open to animadveision ; and it
would be found impossible, a hen persons out of doers, •
were arraigned, to prevent them iei el iing that attack,:
and telling the Public they were not guilty. It would
be recollected that when an Hon. Member had pub-
lished a speech which he made in that H ruse, a dis-
tinCtion was drawn by the Judges who tried the cause,
and they tnlu him, that though not otherwise respon-
sible for it,. by his publication of it he made it his own,
and became, in consequence of that act, personally re-
sponsible— ( Cheers). The Hon. Baronet opposite (Sir •
Francis Burdett, we believe), cheered as if he thorighi
he had got into a difficulty from which he could not
extricate himself. lie Would ask him how was that
charge to be repelled? lt,had been widely circulated
through the medium of the Newspapers, and through
the same medium only could that attack be met and
defeated. Here the lion. Member drew a parallel be-
tweet: the present case and that of Mr. Hope, in which
he disclaimed making any
°allusion for the sake Of.pat(y
purposes, onto gratify or wound private feelings. In .
that it appeared Mr. Hope had been charged with
improperly animadverting on the observations of an
Hon. and Learned Member in his place in Parliament.
Mr. Hope on that occasion appealed to the Hon. Mem-
ber in his lease. Mr. Menzies did net appeal directly,
but animadverted on the speech as it had been reported
in the debates, and on his examination atel.e bar of the
ifouse observed, that he had found the retort alluded •
to in a newspaper, which being a public reflection on
his character he took upon. him to contradict. What
did the House dh? It veted that Mr. Menzies having
ti sasfactorily explained hiSconduct to the House, should
be discharged from his.attendance. As to the report he
should take, it as all.had done, to be incorrect. The
whole question arising. in this case was one which turned
on legal grounds, and it was difficult for Honourable
Members to. understand it, .wile-s they were in the pici-
fession.of The law.. [Here the Right Hon. Gentleman
rear,lehe rahole of the passage, as given in the speech
of gr. Alietcromby.3—No doubt the report of -the
speech in the Newspaper of the Honourable Member
for Caine was not correctly given, from a co npaiiscn
of the accusation with what had been reported to have
been deliVered by him on..the occasion alluded.to. Ina
asmuch as the Lord Chancellor is not said to hive •
made allusion in his Court to that part of the offensive
charge as to the signatures of tWO CCUMelsller to the ice
mainder of the report of that speech so imputed to the
Honourable and Learned Meraer, which stated that
" the Lord Chancellor permitted that practice; by which
a great expense . was brought on the litigating potties.
and great disparagement. on the Learned. Judge wlea
had just he ad the cause. Hence arose much of the
increased business of the Lad Cbancellni's Cdurt, in
permittingehose 'causes to be- brought fur hli lwariag_
by that construction, or, tether,. evasionaehe Act of
Parlienient." If this were so was it not necessary thik
some notice .should be -taken of it? The
..hlsible end
Learned Judge, in the .observations alluded to, suited
the practice of the Court antecedently, beginnipg:eith
die observation that ". As it .has.beeti reeresentesletat
the person who sat here ,does. mist rief by hearing xer-
rain motions withowt the.signatui e of Counsel, Oa is to
say, when motions have been made to .oischatge au
order of the . Vice Chancellor, or the Master of, the
Rolls, such motions'hase. been brought on 'without the
signature of-Counsel, I have only to state that having
been in this Court since the year MS, whenever a mo-
lion has been made before the Master of the Rolls,
which. be has refused to allow, or which he did
allow, and upon an application to the .Chancellor to
vary what the Master a the Roll; had done, or to de-
stroy it altogether; and so. again, whenever 4 m ,don _
has been made before the Vice-Chancellor, and Cduesel
have been of opinion that the matter had been impro-
perly granted or discharged,. the party has :assays in
a:l..hose cases been at liberty to .move again, with a
view to set the' matter right; and if the signature of
Counsel be necessary, toailtea the practice of the. Curt,
as it has obtained since the period I havemeetioued, all
I can say is, that I have not a rightao tax the. King's
subjects in that way." if this accusation were not cal-
culated to create irritation, he was at a loss to know
whate.vas; yet the observations he had just read could
not be objected.to in fairness. Nothing could belmore
Moderate. .As to the imputation alluded to in die next
sentence, he would say that after all insinuation being
thrown out, it was impossible for flesh or blood to bear,
it, or contain itself without andeavreiring to repel the
insinuation, situated as the Ish..ble Judge was. Lord '
Hardwicke, it would be recollected, held, in a somewhat
similar case, that no inegulau it y whatever should be al-
lowed to be imputed to any Judge on the Bench, more
particularly that which he filled, uit hour being imme-
diately called upon in duty to correct or meet 'such im-
putation as seen as made, and that tl•cie was no roe
duty galore imperative on tl e Bench than this. He
would after this ask tl e Hou-e it such iv. re the duty of
a Judge, was the epithet alike' to such a charge,
namely, that of falsehood, to make the difference; or
'was it the use of terms which made it a breach of pri-
vilege? Did the denial in strong terms -appear impro-
per in
.him on such an occasion? Had the Lord Chan-
cellor said •that the charge was completely. erroneous,
what would base been the difference in effect? In
stating it to be an utter falsehood, as it relerred to his
practice in the Court of Chancery, it was not iiitextded
to apply to the person supposed to have . mitre the
charge, but to the- fact so stated. Tie Noble and
Learned Judge went en to state—" With respect toots,
peals and reheeririgs, it is supposed that 1 have heard
them on new evidepceiend thereby brought alhceedre
on some part of the Courts', COW there be areyoing
more moderate ? (Lthrkr and Rea,.( from. tide oppo,
sition).—He could not 'conceive it possible, so poor
triumph should be effected over him for one pan 43£44
sentence before he .could erne* at .the qtlai
whicfi. he was abeut to attach tdit'as to what,
Gall '
~
But beavould contend that if two lines. ot.pert.or -
litres, weretaken out ;of those' observationisalie4'
gea§
, ..
• •

• _

',

:.~>

1

if M

~