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

chive its
?bust be 'taken by Parliament in order to
pd ts dignity. He knew, bbetasier; the ifincririon
rar
r the House too well , Mind he had lived too long to,
see co m my of its privileges invaded with impunity, to
'tow that the present corn slcsint would •be crushed--.
inaratur of Na, no.) He was afraid that his antici-
• nf
ations
woul be realized ; but he could only say, that
thalonse permitted this breach of privilege to pass
unnoticed, it could oar with any consistence call to its
ii;,nar in future any Printers or Conductors of Newspapers,
batever their misdemeanours Might amount to (Hear).
lThe SOLICITOR GENERAL said, it was admitted
on all
hands that the speech of his Honourable and
•
Learned Friend hid not been correctly reported ; and
reported as .it was to the Lord Chancellor, what must,
have been his feelings? what would have 'seen the feel-
ings of his Honourable and Learned Friend had he been
charged with a violation of the. law, •as his Lordship
was in this report of the speech of hiS Honourable and
Learned Friend, in the Paper in question.—tlhe Ho-
noerable and Leirned Gentleman here referred to'',
the report alluded to, which stated in substance
that caseslby way of Appeal were heard before the Lord
Chancellor upon new affidavits.)—Could any dodge be
otherwise than irritated at this? Not a syllable of what
was here stated was true, though it imputed to the Lord
Chancellor the breach of an Act of Parliament. When
he (the Solicitor-General) first saw the repoit of the
speech of his Honourable and Learned Friend, he ins-
xnediiaely observed that he doubted whether his 1:10-f
nourable and Learned Friend ever said what was there
attributed to him—( Cheers front Me Opposition Benches):
—He perfectly understood the meaning of those,
cheers, and would notice them presently. The coma
plaint of his Honourable and Learned Friend, on
the former occasion, was that the Lord Chancellor,
heard, with too great facility, cases which 'had. been
previously heard by the Vice-Chancellor. -It was-known
that the Vice-Chancellor had himself made a tepresetia
tation to the Lord Chancellor on the subject ; and had,
suggested to him the propriety of not heat ing motions,;
unless the Counsel making them assured his Lordship,
that they had not been previously made before him (ihe
Vice-Chancellor). The Lord Chancellor, in answer,
said, he had no power to pievent any such motions, ortta
exact such an assurance ft om any Counsel on the making:
of a motion. With regard to the expressions u-ed by
the Leird Chancellor respecting his Honourable and
Learned 'Friend,. they amounted to this, that his Hon.'
and Learoed Friend had appropriated to himself what,
in fact, had never been meant for him. He, therefore,,
concurred in the cheers'given by the Honourable Gen-
tlemen opposite, when he expressed his doubt of his
Honourable and Learned Friend ever having stated
what he' was reported to have stated. He (the Solicitor-
General) had therefore exculpated the Lord Chancellor
--(Cries of " So, no," from the Ofiposition). Undoubt-,
edly, Honourable Gentlemen would come to their own
conclusions on the subject. though he entirely concurred
in the general remarks, :that no Judge ought to be 'al-
lowed to attack the Bar—( /Icor). He would never'
assist in•such an attack ; he would not turn to the tight
or the left ler any man, however high Might be his
station. Ilis Lordship, however, bad not.spolsea against:
his Honourable and Learned "Friend ; but against the
paper he held in his baud. He (the Solicitor-General)
was therefore justified in saying, that it was not a per-
sonal censure on his Ironourable and Learned Friend;
and was also justified as a consequence, in absolving
the Lord Chancellor from all charge of intentional Of:
fence. Bat a man must be apathetic indeed who did not
express himself strongly against a false imputation, as
had been done by the Lord Chancellor, whose answer
was purely hypothetical.. His Lordship *tad mithave
shewn himself possessed of becoming firmness it he Lad
not repelled the attack upon him ; though, in his re-
sistance of that attack, he alluded to the misrepieenta-
tion made of the speech of the Honourable and,,Learned
Member_ for Caine, and not to the Houourafile and
learned Member himself.
Mr. SCA RLETT felt that he should not be doing his
duty to the House of Commons, or to the profession tp
which he had the honour to belong, if' he were to give
a silent vote upon the present occasion. The speech of
his Honourable and Learned Friend (the SnlititOr‘Ge•
aeral) did him honour. Ile stated manfully, were Mto
read in the newspapers the report of his liisnourable
and Learned Friend's (Mr. Abercromby) speech, be'
wotild immediately set it down as erroneous; hil -Ho-
nourable Friend seemed to doubt it more than the Lord
Chancellor himself. It seas, therefore, no more than,
reasonable that, before the Noble Lord did that which
was. unparalleled with respect to the Bar, he should
have taken care to have all his doubts removed (dear):
But if the Lord Chancellor did not intend an attack
upon his Honourable and Learned Friend (Mr. Aber-
crOmby), but upon the report of the speech imputed to
what could have been more easy thin to have said"
so at die time? (Hear, hear.)—There were many modes
in which that explanation could have been conveyed.
}'le should be glad to know why, the Lord Chancellor,
sot anything reported to be said of him by any person
. in that House, should proceed to comment upon that
person.a—avonldany man say that in so doing the Lord
Chancellor had riot beets guilty of the grossest viola-
of the privileges of that House?—(Cheers )
proceedings should be instituted against such Mein-
for such expression by any process, would any
ionourable Gentleman say that such proceeding would
a gross violation of their privileges? If, then, the'
Chancellor Could hot attack the person 9r the pro.
/.of a Member of that House without a breach of
alege, was it to be endured that he should direct his
against the feelings and the professional characH
such individual?—(Near). lie (Mr. Scaelett)
rather be sent to prison; he would rather be
:ed of his fortune, he would- rather be stripped
I gown, than be called a liar from the judg-
sertt•—efie'ar, hear, hear). He would put another
"""iiall—Suppese that on conviction of having uttered
aoss f.'hehood of an individual in the House of Coos-
a nauestesereed to have the gown stripped off his
if an iadividisal deserved to be thus. treated, how
mote culpableseas that attack which was directed
a their privileges in a Manner rendered more etate,•
violent, and Clore strong, because done by the
Chancelbir of' Bugland ? It had been said, he
not whether-o%ly qt.raltly, that the Bar of Eng-
is in a degraded state. He would not enter.itito
ruestiona Mahe would declare that no step ecalsll
:en so strongly calculated to degrade it as for .the
ChancellOsa or .a Judge presiding' in a Cuttai of
:e, where no person dare. answer him, to attack an;
idual, and-deprive bins of all respectability,
lainprofessional or other respect, by stating_
irat uttered4alvehoods.--(gthir, hear, hear).—
Id the ifouse visit its vengeance an
.interior.
ler for the violittioit.of privilege, and would its
:ar to visit the offender in the present instance be-

y 4 :

•
*•

an whic
shoe
lot anyi
:u that
person,.
Chancel
tion of
If prose
ber for
ilonour
not be ;
Lord CI
petty .01
privileg
attack ;
ter of
• would
stripper
of his
ment si
qiiestio
gross
mons, ;
back; i
much r
against
niore v
• Lord C
knew n
. land is
that qu
be take
Lord C
Justic,
individ
all clai
-that tie
Would
oicode
is ta:tcar