LORD CHIEF JUSTICE COCKBURN :-Certainly.

Mr. KEANE :-"I have been asked whether certain charges were not made against me affecting my honour as a gentleman and as a professional man-whether those charges were not such as, had they been proved, would have insured my being disbarred-whether the result was communicated to me in writing-and whether, as affecting the honour of a gentleman representing the town and county of Southampton, I am prepared to give a copy of the decision to the constituency, or to publish it in some manner calculated to allow every one connected with the town to see it. Now, I answer to the questions of my anonymous interrogator, that the printed evidence of everything which took place during an eight months' investigation with closed doors, is open for his inspection, or for the gratification of his curiosity, at any hour or place he chooses to appoint. But I will also say this, that if he expects me upon this platform to-night, to endeavour in the compass of a few minutes to go over that which occupied so long a time-to parade before you, who could not without a full hearing, and without due consideration, judge of their merits, the details of this protracted inquiry-and to ask you to sit as a Court of Appeal upon the judges who were appointed to conduct it, then I say, I have not come to Southampton to submit to such conditions. Gentlemen, I have now been nearly sixteen years at the Bar. I never won a laurel, and never obtained a promotion, without a severe and arduous struggle. I came among the members of the Northern Circuit with that misfortune which my countryman, Grattan, has described. I came with the curse of Swift upon me.' I was an Irishman. I was made, from my earliest time, the mark of a cruel and jealous opposition, and a determined effort to keep me down if it were possible. But, gentlemen, their efforts failed. Step by step I vanquished one difficulty and another, and won by degrees the honours which I have received, and the dignities which I hold. I obtained a lead at my sessions. I obtained the best Recordership but one on the Northern Circuit. I obtained my rank a short time ago from two Judges, themselves formerly members of the Northern Circuit, of Palatine precedence at Liverpool; and finally, notwithstanding all my traducers-ay, and at the very time when detrac tion was doing its worst, I received the rank of Her Majesty's Counsel, from the hands of the late Lord Chancellor Campbell. Gentlemen, I will tell you the high crimes and misdemeanours which formed the principal points of the recent inquiry. It was my misfortune, or, if my interrogator likes, it was my fault and error in judgment, to accept, many years ago, the chair of a company, and connect myself, more or less, with commercial speculations in London. Gentlemen, the charges, as they are called, which were brought against me, arose out of matters, the youngest of which is seven years old, and others dated back actually to ten years ago. The men who instigated these charges never

I

showed their faces-my real accusers never appeared, but, beginning with the efforts of a few individuals on my own Circuit, scandals were whispered about, which at last, by some means or other, which I have not been able as yet to detect or expose, led to the investigation by the Benchers of my Inn. Those charges arose out of these bygone and past transactions, and they who alone, if the charges were true, had a right or title to complain, were no parties to the institution of the inquiry. Gentlemen, without going into detail, I tell you this, that foot by foot, and inch by inch, I disputed the ground with my assailants. I was, upon fifteen different occasions, before the Benchers of my Inn, and I stood practically before fifteen different tribunals, because upon no two occasions were my judges the same. The examinations were conducted within closed doors. I would to God they had been conducted in the broad light of day, and before the face of my constituents and the country; they were conducted by men sitting down after dinner, varying in their numbers and attendance, and sometimes postponing the inquiry upon the most trivial grounds. But, gentlemen, whatever feelings were entertained towards me originally, there were many among those Benchers, who, I believe, were men of the highest honour, imbued with the spirit of justice, and actuated by feelings of generosity; and to them mainly, and to their indignation at the monstrous wrongs which I was enduring, I believe owe at last the verdict which even my interrogator will not deny has been given in my favour. Gentlemen, I do sincerely hope that that public which claimed for a supposed lunatic the other day a public examination as to his mental capacity-I hope that public will declare, sooner or later, that a man holding my rank should not be tried in the dark, by a tribunal constituted like that before which I have appeared, upon any charges affecting his professional conduct or his private character. Gentlemen, I have now only in conclusion, to tell my disappointed' querist, that I have no objection on earth, if it pleases those who were my judges, to the publication to the world of everything which took place before them. I refer my disappointed elector' to those Benchers whom he has had the impertinence to name; and I believe, if he makes inquiry with the idea that he will gain any material to damage my character, he will come away a doubly disappointed elector. No, gentlemen, if the truth must be told, mine is a hard lot. When men had ceased to strike at my political character-when men had ceased to disown my professional claims, they have dared to assail my private honour; but, as I conquered the former, so I have succeeded in discomfiting the latter; and I tell this disappointed' one in particular, that if he will dare to show his front, and utter in plain language those slanders which he has dared to insinuate, I shall make him responsible before twelve men in a jury-box. Now, gentlemen, I have done; I have gone over the various points, which, fairly or unfairly, have been pressed upon your attention, and upon which

I have come down, though late, to Southampton, in the honest hope that I might receive from you a verdict such as would tell at once to the public that whatever cruelty I have encountered elsewherehowever the dirty fingers of certain members of my own profession have been employed in raking up the scandals of the past for the purpose of dragging up something to damage my repute, yet that you sympathised with your representative-that you accepted the result that you saw me still the member of an honourable profession, in spite of malice, and jealousy, and of political hate-still holding the rank which by such hard struggles I attained, and that you would, by your determination and by your pronounced opinion tonight, trample for ever upon this cruel attempt to call public attention to a matter which, hitherto at least, has been confined to a more limited circle, and has never yet been brought forth and laid before the glare of public day."

Mr. LUSH-That, gentlemen, is the speech they quote, which was made by Mr. Seymour at Southampton. The libel then

goes on to say:

"If this speech took the public by surprise, it was read by the Bar and the Benchers, though on different grounds, with considerable astonishment. The Bar were amused to find that the promotion of Mr. Digby Seymour, first to the Recordership of Newcastle, and then to the rank of Queen's Counsel, could be quoted as any approval of his professional character, when the favour shown him was notoriously the result of negotiations in the division lobby."

What is that but a direct charge of corruption as a Member of Parliament? What is it but saying, "You have bartered your votes in the division lobby, and by reason of that you have obtained your two appointments"? I have already told you that the first he obtained in the regular course, when he was in such a position as fairly entitled him to it, and his vote was given before any vacancy in the Recordership was known or even thought of, in favour of the Ministry; and the second appointment was conferred upon him in company with many others of my learned friends, and I may say, without disparagement to those gentlemen, that Mr. Seymour was as much entitled by his practice to that distinction, as any of them

were.

"But the Benchers of the Middle Temple were still more amazed to read in the columns of the Times that their treatment of Mr. Sey mour had been either unjust in itself, or could form the ground of complaint on his part, still less that there was any obstacle to his publication of evidence printed at length, forwarded to him by their direction, and at the time of his speech lying in his chambers."

Did the writer of this article know that Mr. Seymour had pub

lished an account of this evidence, but dare not circulate it publicly because other gentlemen, whose names were referred to in it, had given him notice not to do so, though that notice has since been withdrawn?

"Moreover, the professions of gratitude, tearful we are told, if not abject in their nature, with which Mr. Seymour had received the intimation of the Bench that they had taken a merciful view of his case, and would censure, without disbarring him, formed a strange contrast to the loud challenge and fierce denunciations with which he alluded to his trial at Southampton."

The writer puts that in here, when he has in his hand at the same moment that which he puts into a subsequent part of the libel, Mr. Seymour's protest to the Benchers against what they had done; although he has that in his hand at the time, he represents Mr. Seymour's professions of gratitude to have been "tearful, if not abject in their nature."

LORD CHIEF JUSTICE COCKBURN:-I can understand that, prior to an intimation being given to Mr. Seymour that the sentence of the Benchers is to be limited to censure, he expresses his gratitude; and afterwards, when the sentence is pronounced, that is followed by a protest.

Mr. LUSH:-Yes, my lord; that is what is meant. Then the writer goes on to say:

"In order to set the public right on one of these points, at any rate, the Under-Treasurer of the Inn was directed to forward the subjoined letter to the Editor of the Times, by whom it was published on Saturday the 22nd February. Sir,-I am directed by the Masters of the Bench of the Middle Temple to inform you that a copy of the Judgment of the Benchers in Mr. Digby Seymour's case, and copies of the evidence and proceedings on which it was founded, were furnished to Mr. Digby Seymour by the Benchers before Mr. Digby Seymour made his address to his constituents at Southampton. I am, Sir, your obedient Servant, T. H. Dakyns, Under-Treasurer. Treasury Office, Middle Temple, Feb. 21.'"

Mr. Seymour says to his constituents: "I tell the disappointed elector that, if he will come to my chambers, he may see the whole of the evidence at any time." But then they say, Mr. Seymour ought to have published it. His answer to that is: 'I had notice from persons whose names are mentioned in the proceedings, not to publish; but the evidence is now at my chambers, and if you choose to come there and see it, you may read every line of it." The writer of this article, however, makes it appear that Mr. Seymour

had denied that he had it; and then, on the 24th, this letter was written by Mr. Seymour to the Editor of the Times, to contradict that false impression.

"Sir,-With reference to a letter in the Times of to-day, signed T. Dakyns, and stating that a copy of the proceedings before the Benchers of the Middle Temple was furnished to me before I addressed my constituents at Southampton, I beg to refer you to the report of my speech in your columns, which contains the following paragraph; Now, I answer to the questions of my anonymous interrogator, that the printed evidence of everything which took place during an eight months' investigation, with closed doors, is open for his inspection, or for the gratification of his curiosity, at any hour or place he chooses to appoint.""

Then the writer of this article goes on:

"The above letter, like some others from the pen of Mr. Digby Seymour, curiously avoids the real question at issue. The point is not whether an 'anonymous interrogator' has been offered an inspection of the evidence, but whether Mr. Digby Seymour has not had, for some time past, the means afforded him of giving the fullest publicity to the facts alleged against him, and whether (in spite of his vehement asseverations of injured innocence, and desire for publication) he has not judged it more prudent to keep those facts concealed."

Now, really, after he had said to the people at Southampton, "The evidence is all at my chambers, and you are quite welcome to come and see it at any time you please," to charge him with avoiding the real question at issue, and with having intimated that he had not the means afforded to him of giving the fullest publicity to the facts alleged against him, shows certainly what the animus of this writer is, who will not look with favour on any single act of Mr. Seymour's conduct. Then the writer goes on to say:

"The Benchers, whose whole proceedings in this case have been secretive and dilatory to an unfortunate degree, did not publish their judgment on Mr. Digby Seymour at the time when it was given, being probably swayed by the same merciful considerations as induced them to confine that judgment to a censure of the delinquent; but on the same Saturday on which the letter of their Under-Treasurer was dated, the following judgment was screened in the Middle Temple Hall, where, as we think, it ought to have appeared long before."

Now comes the reproof which the Benchers pronounce :

"The Masters of the Bench have carefully considered the volu minous evidence and documents which have been brought before