Mr. Longfield, member for Mallow, on Tuesday brought up the
question of the Lord Chancellor's conduct, in a speech so violent as materially to damage his case, which, moreover, was imperfect, being based on the report, and not on the evidence. He asked if Lord Westbury was a man "insensible to shame" or devoid of gentlemanly feeling, that he did not resign. The Attorney-General in answering almost confined his reply to the unfairness of accus- ing an absent man before the evidence against him had been pro- duced, but Lord Cranborne, in a spitefully clever speech, argued that as Mr. Longfield had been on the Committee that argument did not apply to him. Finally, Lord Palmerston, while declaring his belief that the evidence would be seen to justify the acquittal in the report, stated that he intended to place it in the hands of the law officers, and abide by the result. The discussion therefore produced no effect beyond expediting the production of the evidence, which appeared on Thursday, and which has greatly moderated the tone of all journals hostile to the Chancellor.
