16 FEBRUARY 1867, Page 2

A grand scandal exploded in the House of Lords on

Tuesday, when Earl Russell presented a petition from Mr. Rigby 1Vason, alleging that the Chief Baron of the Exchequer was too dishonest a person to remain a ju lge. Mr. Kelly, in 1835, contested Ipswich, won Ipswich, was petitioned against, defended himself, and won his cause. Ile had bribed, it seems certain, a scamp named Pilgrim having subsequently betrayed Lim, but Mr.

1Vason's assertion is that Mr. Kelly, while defending himself, pledged his honour to the Committee that he did not know Pilgrim. Mr. Kelly denies this, Mr. Gurney's short-hand notes of the trial contain no statement of the sort, Ipswich and Suffolk, where Mr. Kelly has plenty of enemies, never believed this charge, and there is, in fact, no evidence whatever that Mr. Kelly said anything of the kind, though he may have said, as he would have done for any other client, that there was no evidence of agency. There was none till Pilgrim peached, and the statement—which fifty persons present could have contradicted, for all Ipswich thronged to the committee-room—could not have benefited Mr. Kelly one whit. Lord Derby, after some sharp remarks upon Earl Russellfor present- ing a libellous petition in which Earl Russell himself did not believe moved and carried its rejection. Lord Chelmsford defended his nominee with great bitterness and ability, but made one stupid mis- take. Mr. Kelly challenged his libeller in 1835, and Lord Chelms- ford observed that Mr. Wason thought it best to be guided by the Christian rule, " Be not high-minded, but fear," and applied to the police. That is to say, the first Judge in the land, the " keeper of the Queen's conscience," considers that for a man not to com- mit a murder when public opinion requires it is a disgraceful offence, which ought to be flung in his teeth thirty years after- wards !