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

cause he was the tord chineellof of England ?. If hi
knew anything:of_ the irtiSfileges'":o thit ttoiii; he
knew that no individual ia:this although having
at his disposal more patronage, possessing more power
than any other, who filled the highest station in thr
State, who enjoyed the utmost of dignity idd honour,.
should be permitted to attack a Member* of that House,
who, as compared with. the Lord Chancellor, must be
termed an humble individual: Was it to be endured
that the Lord Chancellor was to pounce upon that indi-
vidual, and to pour upon him the vial of his wrath, be-
cause' he had read in the Newspapers the report of a
speech imputed to that individual ?...(Hear, hedr)—lf
a Judge in any other Court had ventured to make such
a declaration as that or the Noble Lord, would not the
House feel indignant? Why should silence then be
preserved becaase the offending individual was the
.Iford Chancellor? Was it fear of that Noble Lord
;which infininced the House? Why should not the
:House then act as it would with an Unhappy printer?
Suppose the Lord Chancellor had thought and declared'
that something uttered by a Member of that House
of him was false, was, there any reason why that person
should not be supported and defended? There was a donbt
that thb individual pointed at was his (W. Scatlett's)
-Honourable and Learned Friend (Mr. Abercromby).—
'His Honourable and Learned Friend had that night de-
clared that he had not made those statements which had

provoked the anger of the Noble Lord. This was not'
a question in Which the character the Noble Lord was
involved. Was it because a Member in tkat House
should speak 'his sentiments, even though he might be
-in- error, that he was to be liable to attack for such a
discharge'of his duty ? Why should he not state than
he thought to be trite, withoUt respect to persons?
Tor his own part, he disclaithed all inteOthin-of reflect,
ing upon the Lord Chancellor. He had never expe-
'rienced.from that Noble Lord anything 'but civility and
condescension; and he only rote upon the present occa-
-Ision, because he never recollected it case in which so
imperious a-necessity existed forassettiaithe privileges
.of that House.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAIL,said, if he were asked
what was the impression Upon-his mind on the'itibject,
he should declare 'his conviction that. the .N able Lord
had no intention to attack, but to defend himielf against
unfounded charges that hadbeen brought against him.
lie would call upon all those:who could-feel,, to con•
cider, when such charges were circulated- ;hrongh-
out, the country, What must be the feelings: -arid, what
the situation of .the Noble Lord? .-..chatge was
contained in a speech said. to have beenfuttored. on'
rpesday night ;- it was Published, on WedlteldafAhand
'it went to say that the Lord 'Chancellor 'was guilty. of
an attempt to elevate -himself at the expense of the cha-
racter of 'another Judge, who sat with him in the sime,
WltainVire gifting charge could be Made against.
'such-an eialted individual? WIZe. was that 'cliargi
asserted 'to have been made? Within the walk nf Par-
liament;and that Charge' in that state, was circulated
throughout thectitintry.... Whit was the situation 'of the
individual thus charged? Did his Hanotiratie: arid.
Learned Friend {Mr. Abercromby) come down to the
House 'and complain of the misrepresentation of his
speech, in which he was *Made to charge the'NOble and
Learned Lord with the offences alreidy-mentioned?.
(Hear, hear).—.l34) his Honourable and Learned Frieod
come down to that House and complain Of those -libels
.which had been put into
,his mcuth ; and not having
thine io, was the Noble and Learned Lord trot . to--feel
an honest indignatiOn on reading, for the first 'time,
the offensive article? . And, holding the paper in his
hand,- was he not to be sulFered to allude to, the paper
itself ?-,-Iflear, heel.).—'What the Noble Lord had said
upon that occasion was no a~pptied_tdliis'Honourable
and Learned. Friend, Anitlo,, those charges so falsely
brought fOrward againstlins-i4Hear, jeers*).—He had
followed hii Honourable and Learned Friend through
his speech on the ottadoy referred to, and although his
Ilonourable Friend bad'expressed'himself with accuracy
and-distinctness. os him and other lawyers, .yet it was
possible that :Orson! net equally acquainted Stith-tech-
nicalities might have misunderstood hirk; for'be
Attorney-General) masperfecdy satisfied that the of-fensive article was the result of. eriors.and not of design.
When his Noble and' Learned • Friend saw that misre-
presentation of his conduct, be expressed himself; he
admitted unguardedly,, with warmth. Holding, at that
moment, the Newspaper in his hand, he: bad- expressed
his indignation - but every person who heard him, felt
.that the NobleLordhad applied himself to it; and not
to his Honourable and Learned Friend—(Hear; hear).
-Should-the Houie not atial tbatesplanation sufficient,
'he felt capable of going fuither. He was sure,. when,
the House should confider the situation of his WOO.,
able and Learned Friend, when the House shOUldCson,
sider the nature of the charges, that he had pervertid
the law, and thatAt had so perverted-the law for base
purposes, wAs it too moth for hint to expect that some
consideration and indulgence would be extended to him
for having given' vent to his feelings, when he first.saVr
thOse false statements? He was not speaking of the
period when the publication of the -proceedings of that
House was prohibited, but of 'the present ti-me, when
they goforth to the world, and are every day detailed—
was. it to be permitted, therefore, that misrepresenta-
tions should be put into the mouth of an Honourable
Member, and suffered to 'pas, with impunity ? The
House should be guarded, however, when vindicating its
privileges. With reference to an observation of .his
Honourable and Learned Friend (Mr. Scarletr) as to the
degraded state of the might venture to say,
that at no period in the history of this country; did'
the Bar enjoy moreindepeidence or . more fteedoin:ot
debate—( Hear, hear). When he first read the report
of his Honourable said Learned Friend's speech; he felt
convinced that it Was ineOract. The report contained
a charge of a most criminal nature against the Lord
Chancellor; and if that Noble and
,Learned -Lord had
expressed himself warmly upon it, he (the Attorney=
General) was stare the House would not express itself
too warmly upon what fell from the Noble Lord under
those circumstances upon that oceasion—(Hear, hear).
Mr. scARLErr.-4 did not. state it as my opinion
that the Bar was in a degraded state. 14'4 not say so,
nor do Itlrink.so.; but I will say' this, that the: honour
and independence of the Bar are owing solely to its'
*wn
Mr. Tlgasgy should have considered himself di's-•
graced were,fie-par.give a silent vote on the'present
oc-
casion. His Hon. and. Learned Friend had come down
to that Rouse and natal' that the Noble Lord-had at-
tacked .hirn (hia Hon.
.Psfead), and, not satisfied' with.
that, but that he to in gloss and.caumnious terms.
The words used lig the Noble and Learned Lord could.
not be justified by' anything that had fallen from his,
llr. Tierney's) Hon. Friend. It was impossible for any
lanai to Standhigher ipputslic.npinian aUd.public.respeo.t.
than his lion. ancEtearned.Frient. Won die.akack

~O

„ ,

• .

was unnecessary to say another wad ; the question was,
What should be done with the calumniator? What was
to be done-with the Lord Chancellor? There wjs a de-
fence made for. that Noble Lord ; andyet not one of his
advocates had been empowered by him to utter one
word of all they had advanced. If the Lot(' Chancellor
had intended to humble himself before the House, the.'
Right Hon. Gentleman the Secretary for Foreign Afy.
fairs would not have been the Individual selected to
convey that intention; because it *might have been be-
lieved that the Lord Chancellor had interrupted the
'Right Honourable Gentleman in his foreign travels in
order that he might have a defender in that House.—
What was said by the Hon. and Learned Gentle Man in
defence of the Noble Lord was not very concluiive; fogy
he attributed the warmth with, which he had expressed
himself to the first impulse of indignation oa seeing
himself attacked, that being the only paper which he
was ever known to neglect taking home to reconsider—
(A laugh )—it WAS the only paper on which he ever de
cided a ithout taking time to read over—(l.nagfiter).
He -was called upon to acquit the Noble Lord, not be-
cause ;he was a cool man—not because he was a consi
derate man—not because be was a dispassionate man—
but because he was a.rash man—(Near, hear, and laugh-
f ter). Thy excuse for the attack made by the Noble Lird,
, while under the infinence of his feelings, the house we-
called upon to take, not fiom himself, or at a first hand.
but at a third or fourth. When Mr. Farqu'iarsan should
`be called to the Bar of the. House, he might say, un-
doubtedly, that he had correctly reported the Noble
Lord ; and from what he knew of Mr. Farquharson he,
was justified in believing-he bail reported hi ul correctly
therefore, everything the House had done was pi emature.
Would the-House, therefore, say, that because the Lord
Chancellor was the offender, they would not vindicate
their privileges? In the last care of breach of privilege
Mr. Hope had been brought from Edinburgh ; arid
'becausethat'HouSe had dreier
.itselfxdilsfied that Mr.
Hope had not, intended a hof privilege, they let
him off, he ( Mr. Tie, ney) thought too ensily. . He could
easily conceive the temper and state of mind of the.
Load Chancellor, after the:nuniber.of motions that had'
been made in that House -respecting his Court. Ile
argument that it was not his (Mr.Tierqey's) Hooourable
and Learned Friend who had been the object of the
Noble Lord's attack, but 'the paaerLthat it was 'tile
paper and not the man that he meant; and yet the
Noble Lord had suffered the matier to stand over on
:Wednesday, Thursday, and - Friday, without any at-
tempt to ascertain whether or not the publication in
the Paper was accurate; but on Saturday, said, " This
-is -enough for me, I, shall go down, and give it him.'"
"e46-(:)h," replies the Solicitor-General, " his Lordship'
meant.to attack .the Newspaper, not the Barrister.
:What! has a NeWspiper di a gown upon its back ?":--
,(Much cheering.)—Wlien it lias, the answer may he a
good one, but not .till theis—( Ilea r, hear).—l have
too high a respect for the-Learned Attorney-General to
suppose that he would enter ' into.anything like so ca-
villing a defence as to say, that the Lord Chancellor
-did not mean to refer to a debate in the House of Corn-
Mons, or that when he mentioned men " with gowns on
their backs," he did not allude to my three Hon. and,
Learned Friends who took part in the debate pf Tuess
day night : against them only could the attack be le-
veiled. He knew there was a difficulty as to how the
'Laid Chancellor wit's to be heard ;in hii own vindlca-
itiOn ; but if the question should he carried, he (Mr.
!Tierney) would be the very first man tp recommend to
'the House to pause before. proceeding further. If the
Lind 'Chancellor should apologize on the Bench—
if 'he came down to his Coma and . were to declare
-,...“ What I have said of the Hon. and Learned Gentle-
man, I uttered rashly, and on a reporrof a speeeh which
I have ascertained was unfounded;" stichn declaration
would ruin him as a Judge and as. a Lord, Chancellor,
,and, therefore, it could not be expected that the Noble
and Learned' Lord would say any such thing. fie-be:
lieved the Lord Chancellor to be a man of. integrity;
but he believed him not io be such i Judge, as, that
Parliament ought to lay their privileges aside, in order
'that he should escape without their erpressiog the Sense
of the HMls* on his viaducts .
Re felt gfat fesped for
th
e Luid ChancellOr : ,but ark all :that respect, be
isTreuld say, the *business of his -Court had, for the last
awo years, been suches had made it be termed a na-
tional grievance i and was
,he, because he was Lord
Chancellor. Rnglind of twenty-two, years standinF,, to
say whatever he pleased of any man? He (Mr. Fier-
,ney).could appeal to every man in the House—he could
appeal to the feelings Of every man in the country, and
'asks if. the praktice of, the Court of Chancery was or
was not a grievance to Be complained of ? This was the
' individual: and becauie he was the Lord Chancellor,
ahe -House was _to he called upon to take no further
steps in the affair. If the motion should be refused,
there could never again arise a possibility of asserting
their privileges.—Men out of doors would say there was
no impartiality observed—that a differeutsonduct was to
be obsetved towards the rich And the poor. What could
bi said to any-arian out ,of doors who should say—
" Why did you not refuse to do that with me, which
you did not dare attempt against the Lord Chancellor
of England, in vindication of ycidr own privileges?"
, Mr. Secretary PEEL submitted to the Houie, before
it should take any step in this business, to consider well
what it ought to do. ' h appeared to him, that in dis-
coising that-matrer two subjects Hid been' Afiled trta,
he should first ask, therefore, had any litsericir of ;pins
vilege been committed? and next, beaten?. threat been
used against any Gentleman of the Bar? These were
the qnes:ions upon which the House wi *ld hove to de-
cide, and the latter one was by fir the tiniteimportant..
With respect to the qoestionof breach of privilege, it
was' unnecessary for him to say how often in everyday
were the standing orders and the privileges of the House
violated. And here he would remind, the House, that
in this instance the cause of ail the offence which had.
been taken at either side had-originated and began in a
breach of the' orders of their. own House. They had
undoubtedly the power to suppress the publiCation of
their own debates. Here then tvas,a fl grant instance
and proof of its inconvenience. It was st.tied that an
Hon'. Member had Oit a late-occasion made use of lan-
page reflecting on the conduct of the Noble Lord pre-,
siding inthe highest {,curt of Justicein• the. realm of
Great Britain. ~The report, of this speech goes abroad,
not only through England, but through the world.—
The consequence naturally niust be, that the individual
ao alluded to roust feel his character and his honuttri
-wounded .lif the charges stated to have been maalol
against him? If-that distinguished indivicloal, so cir-
t enistanced, shall coneeiiebimself falsely calumniated,
t **Quid natiititlifoliciw that, with the feelings Oft an.
. , :lisliman, he had made use of language which was
ealTexpresbiveola sente of injury ariaiqg from a gross
'inisrepresentation or Caluniny on his chaioctif and mo-
ives They it'ailld aiio recoiled that be was fidt the

-1111111k..4.. • • ,