London, Wednesday March 3...
The Times, 1824-03-03T00:00:00

The ynr;tion respecting the Lord Chancellor ELDON IS, ' take it for all in all," perhaps one of the most singularI occurrences wIhich the domestic history of the present day I will present to the view of posterity. WVe have often obl- served privately, in ho1w tranquil a manner matters of vast irnport in their future consequences have passed, with re- spect tf cotemporineous observation: they have seemed to make but little immediate impression, because, though they have set the reason to work, they have not much rnoved the Dassious. Of such a nativre is the motion of Alr.,I A.aERcFoMBY, ancl its result. It hardllv seems to strike the people of the present rlay, that a motion has been made,,1 the success of which must have been to bring down the Lottr, CHANCE.LOR of England, as an apologist for him-| self, in one hurble form or other, before the assembled majesty of the House of Commons, and that that motion has only been defeated by a majority of i1 to 102 W!! ! e choose to mention the prime numbers, rather than the dif-j ferenct; because,from that circumstance also, a pregnant in- ference may be drawn-namely, that a motion of suchb vast importance, upon which the honour of the CHANCEL- top. of England depended, could only draw together a House of 253 members! Is this all you are worth, myv Lord, after your boasted labours, your judicial integrity, your unwearied patience, to say nothing of the patience which you have tried, as well as that which you have ex- hibited ? Is this all you are wvorth ? Only a house of two hundred and fifly-three members; and of that nuimber, more than one hundred voting in your condemnation ? Go -now, and complain, as an illustrious female once complain- ed when your name was mentioned, of the treachery and ingratitude of mankind! Nor isthis the whole. It will be observed, that of all the members who voted for the CHANCELL.OR, not one spoke in justification of his conduct. Thev palliated-they evaded- they excused: they dlid net defend. One man said his Lordslhip abused the paper, the newspaper which had con- tained the false report, at that violent rate; another pleaded the irritability of a temper that was never known to decide hastily till the present occasionl; a thirdi drew a distinction between " utter falsehood" and ` cxtiemely erroneous," to the detrimient, in fact, of the person who us-ed thc former expression; but the act itself of the CUANC LF.OR was left wholly untouched, as it was committecd by himL. His Lord- sltip stated upon the judgment-seat cf his Coourt-of the IHigh Court of Chancery-that tIal whichl a NMember of the House of Coromnonq lhad said in his place in thi t liouse wvas an "* utter falsebootd." In three words, therefore, we ask, may not w'E say as much of any AMember whoml we suppose to have committed a falsehood inl the House? An-l if we may not, way may we not?: May inot any EI)g- lishman hereafter say as much ? And if he may not, uwhymayhe not, after the LORD CHANCELLORof Eniglanld hassethim the example? Is the precedent establishedl fromi this time forth, that any manl out of the Holuse of Commons miay charge one in it with speaking an utter falsehood in his place? And if the present. proceeding does iot establish the precedent, what is meant by it? What exemption on the score of Inortal frailty, or stuper-constitu- tional power, does the CHANCELLOR plead ? WYe should be sorry to put our doctrine to the proof, even nowv, when the precedent is warm; but we say that tteC CHANCtLi.oR did XOT speak from a newspaper re- port. Hc never s.u,x thTat he spoke fronm a newspaper rc- port, when he used the offlls;vc expitession. Above all, he never spoke onl Saturtlay fronm the report of a newspaper which was pstblishc(l on lVcdiesday morn- ing, containintg thle proceerinigs of Tiestd v night. Tnis was an after-inventnon. We ask, if Lord Srowssr.m, the CFrAmscrttgoas brother, was not in the Yiouse oT Cointnons during the debatc of that night ? ?Not that tbi5 is a matter of any consequence. Perhaps our feeling may be a profes- sional one; but we will take the invention of the newspaper report as 3fact.arndx e then ask, if, up to the presenlt time,- (from -ienceafrth of course a different eonduct. will be pur- sued by the House,)-butt if, np to the prtsent time, we, In a leadling article, had, on the faith of any other newspaper Yeport, charged a Mfember of the h.outse with uttering a falaeh'o'l, how would the H.use of Conmmons havc d-alt wvith us?-as it lias dealt with7 the LOBD CHAN- c t7LLoR ? Now, wC presume, we are free. JIowever, of course the miatter does not rest in its present posi- tion. Of the Lnm{ CHANc9rc..of'S frienrds, one has said one thiin& for him, aitwther another; but he has said nothirrg for Tiimself. the slanider stantds unretraeted by its authbr. It Was'kind in Mr. CANNIsr, to inmagine this mode of accoumstinj for the error of his noble friend-in Mr. Pk Fr., to suppose' that the hasty expression might have escaped from his Lordihip through that misconception; bnt both these suppositions nay be wide of the truth. It is only his Lordship hims6lf wbo can rcally state the grounds of his error; and it remains withl hiim to make the declara- tion-to confirm or- reverse the funa7tthenticalted glosses of his friends. , __ _ LONDON, WEDYESnAY MARCIH 3, 18$.