LORD BROUGHAMbelieved that he might venture to assert that no one who had been so long as he had in Parliament had ever taken notice so seldom as he had of any libellous matter published, or of any Breach of Privilege committed against him. He might also add, that no person had ever been more the object of the most indiscriminate, and he might say the most absurd and the most unfounded abuse. Nevertheless, in all such cases he had adopted a neutral course, and had left the truth to come out in the natural lapse of events. There was, however, one species of Breach of Privilege which he had never been disposed to pass unnoticed. To be exposed to attacks was the fate of all public men, and no man ought to shrink from, or be too sensitive to, attacks; but, under pretence of stating what a noble Lord had said in Parliament, to put words into his mouth which he had never uttered, for the purpose—the express purpose—of calumniating him—words which the writer of the calumny must have well known that he had never uttered—of this he was fully convinced, as he had seen a true and harmless report previously circulated in the writer's own journal, who had afterwards found a calumnious report in another paper, which he reprinted—to put such words into his mouth for such a purpose, formed, he said, a case in which he thought that the party calumniated was bound to bring the individual so offending, under the notice 453 of their Lordships' House. He had read with some astonishment, and also with some amusement, a most absurd tissue of mis-statements with regard to his conduct in a recent Divorce Bill. It had been said that he (Lord Brougham) made a point of attending upon all Divorce Bills, and upon nothing else. Now, the fact was, that a law Lord was bound to attend in all such cases; and in so attending he had done no more than his duty. It had also been said that no Divorce Bill could be obtained without his concurrence and assent. Why, it might as well have been said that no Bill whatever could pass without his concurrence and assent, seeing that he had a right to be present at all proceedings in their Lordships' House, and that he was generally punctual in his attendance. Then came a variety of total fictions and inventions, namely, that he had received persons in his house at Cannes whom he knew to be living in criminal connexion with each other, when, on the contrary, he disbelieved in the existence of any such connexion, and had written home five letters, some of them to noble Lords then in the House, stating that he had inquired into the truth of the report, and that he did not believe one word of it. The parties had never been under his roof for a single day since he had heard that a suit had been instituted in the ecclesiastical courts of this country. Another of the statements was, that in the sad affair of the late Queen's trial, he had been notorious for revelling with peculiar gusto in all the vile and abominable stories and evidence of the Italian witnesses. Why, he was on the other side—he was counsel, not for the prosecution, but for the defence; he had done all that he could to smother and rebut the evidence of the Italian witnesses, and, not having succeeded in that object, he had endeavoured, as was his bounden duty, to throw discredit on those witnesses by his cross-examination of them, and to put them, if he could, out of court. Then came this statement, that he (Lord Brougham) had announced his intention of obstructing the passage of the late Bill by browbeating the witnesses. Why, the late Bill was his own Bill. He had brought it in himself; he had asked their Lordships to suspend their standing orders for it; he had even given notice that he should himself move its second reading. And their Lordships would now see what a clever and pleasant construction this writer had put upon his 454 acts and intentions. Other things were also said of him; but of this he (Lord Brougham) particularly complained. It was stated in the paper failed the Daily News that he had said that if all the letters addressed to himself by married women were to be put in evidence, the consequence would be dreadful. Now, if all the letters addressed to him by married women were to be published at Charingcross, no other result would follow but pity that he had received and been compelled to read so many letters. It might be said that he ought to call to their bar the editor of the paper which first printed this trash. On Monday last he had filed an affidavit averring that there was no foundation for these charges. He was proceeding to move upon that affidavit that a criminal information should be filed against the printer who originally published them, when with the greatest candour Mr. Wilson, the respectable proprietor of the Globe newspaper expressed his deep regret that that article had got into his paper without his knowledge, and at once, with the assent of the writer of the article, whom he did not know, but who was described to him as a man of great talent, but who could not be considered as a man of great prudence, gave up his name. The writer, a most respectable gentleman, a priest of another religion, not only gave up his own name, but also put into his (Lord Brougham's) hands, for his (the writer's) vindication, the letter on which he had proceeded to write the article in question, having given implicit credit, as he (Lord Brougham) admitted that he was bound to do, to a statement which came from a person of such high standing and respectability. It was the letter of a person who now resided in another country, who was labouring under great excitement from believing that a great injury was about to be done to him, and who had acted upon that belief under ignorance both of the law and of the facts. These two persons—he meant the proprietor and editor of the Globe—had gone wrong in the first instance, but had afterwards done what was right in the most fair and candid manner. On that account, he would not mention the name either of the writer of the letter, or of the writer of the article founded upon it. But then came the Daily News, which chose to go back from its own accurate report, and to insert in its columns this grossly inaccurate report, merely because it was likely to be offensive to him. He appealed 455 to his noble and learned Friend on the opposite benches whether he had said anything about the letters of married women?
§ LORD LANGDALECertainly not.
LORD BROUGHAMHe had now stated his case against the Daily News. He thought that there was no excuse for its conduct. He would, however, take time to consider the course which he ought to pursue with regard to it, and if he felt at the next sitting of their Lordships as he did at that moment, he would certainly move that the printer be called to the bar.
§ LORD REDESDALEwished to take that opportunity of explaining what had been misrepresented elsewhere, with regard to what had fallen from him on this subject. He had made a few remarks when the Bill was before their Lordships' House; and, as they had been misrepresented in some quarters, he felt most anxious that what he really did say should be accurately known. What he had stated was this—not that he was opposed to the Bill, but that he did not consider sufficient evidence had been adduced to the House to sanction them in passing it. He was satisfied, in his own mind, that the noble Lord interested (Lord Lincoln) was entitled to the act of justice demanded for him; but he thought their Lordships were proceeding on knowledge similarly obtained, rather than on the legal evidence which they should require in such a case. What he had stated was, that he did not think it right, in the case of an individual connected with their Lordships, as was the case in this instance, and when all parties in the House were well acquainted with the facts, that they should proceed differently from another case in which a stranger came before them. With regard to the fact of adultery on the part of the wife, he had no doubt; but on other facts which it was necessary to have proved, he considered they had no evidence whatever. What he had stated was, that he thought, under those circumstances, they were proceeding rather too hastily, and not in that cautious manner by which the proceedings of that House ought to be guarded, so that no person should be able to say that there was any difference in the administration of justice to parties connected with their Lordships compared with strangers. But he added, that if their Lordships were satisfied that the evidence before them would sanction their going on, he had no objection to the Bill being proceeded with.
LORD BROUGHAMsaid, he could fully bear testimony to the perfect accuracy of the statement just made by his noble Friend.
§ Subject at an end.
§ House adjourned till To-morrow.