Mr. Richards, the obtrusive Member for Knaresborougb, has ad- dressed

a letter to Lord Brougham complaining of being attacked in the" Jenkins and Tomkins " pamphlets. A copy of this letter had been forwarded to the Dowager Chancellor; who, it seems, "sent for Mr. Edmunds," as is his wont in cases of emergency; and that gentle- man, by direction of his Lord, addressed the following note to Mr. Richards's publishers, with the printed letter.

" Berkeley Square, Wednesday. " Sir—I am directed by Lord Brougham to return the enclosed Pamphlet; which appears to have been sent to him by mistake, as he has no ( oneern with the matter.

" I am, Sir, your obedient servant. " To Messrs. Hatchard and Son. " L. Earn:rms."

Upon receipt of this note, Mr. Richards sent the following answer to sundry newspapers : whether he despatched it to Lord Brougham also, does not appear.

" Mr. Richards begs to say, that, if Lord Brougham will state that he never, either directly or indirectly, authorized the publication of " Isaac Turnkins" and " Peter Jenkins," nor reviewed them in the Edinburgh Review, Mr. Richards will immediately endeavour to suppress the Letter to Ids Lonlship, and will also beg Lord Brougham's pardon. " 13, Cadogan Place, April 30."

We suspect that Mr. Richards is more than a match for the " Dow- ager: " he has evidently hit the nail on the head now, blunderer though he commonly is.

The Times on Wednesday printed the following piece of defamation as a leading article (the Times has lately been at a loss for leaders).

" The following anecdote is in general circulation through London, and we have every reason to believe that it is true. A few (lays bethre Mr. Shell's motion on the subject of Lord Londonderry's appointment as Ambassador to Russia, Lord John Russell met Lord Londonderry at the Duke of Devonshire's; and having been on terms of great intimacy with him at Vienna and elsewhere, he took that opportunity of telling him that he considered the attacks which had been made on him in the public papers as harsh and unfair,—that a communication had been made to him by an Irish Member of an intention to bring his case before the House of Commons,—that he believed that he had dissuaded him from doing so.—and that, at all events, he would have nothing to do w ith so personal an attack. Lord Londonderry was naturally pleased at this mark of friendship, and thanked him for it. On the Friday following, Mr. Shell. however, did bring Seward his motion ; and on the Monday, Lord Londonderry, who had not announced to any one what his interitions were, was visited by Mr. Holmes. who informed him that it was necessary that he should make up his mind speedily, as lord John Russell intended to take the busluess into his own bands, and ask Sir Robert Peel a question on the subject that day. Lord Londonderry denied the possi- bility of such being the case, and told Mr. Holmes what had occurred at Devonshire House. lie then went to the House of Lords, and was scarcely on his legs to announce his resignation, when he heard that Lord Jelin Russell had risen in the Commons, and put a question to Sir Robert Peel as to whether his appointment was to be cancelled or not. Lord John subsequently also said, 'that he considered the appointment so ill- advised as to call for the observations made by other gentlemen as well as Mr. Shell.' This ancilote require i s but ;few comments. It s lamentable to think that the rancour of party feeling should so far prevail over an otherwise honourable mind, as to tempt is man like Lord John Russell to make a gratuitous offer of friendship, and then fly from it, as lie did, without the slightest reason fur doing so. We believe that Lord Lon- donderry had an opportuaity of speaking his mind to Lord John Russell at Devon- shire house since the affair ; and that he plainly told him, before Sir Robert Gordon, his opinion of his conduct."

Upon this the Courier remarks, quietly—" We take it on us to say, that the material facts relied on are not true." The commentary is suf- ficient and pertinent.

Lord Alvanley is said to have commissioned the Honourable George D. Darner to demand an apology for the gross epithet applied to him by the Irish Dictator.—Post. [This cannot be correct. The Agitator, it is known, disclaims allegiance to the "laws of honour." He won't fight—that's certain ; but we believe that there are half-a-score of Maurices, Johns, and Morgans, bearing the same patronymic, who would enjoy a shot at his Lordship prodigiously.] Mr. D'Israeli "the Younger" declared on the hustings at Taunton, that he was not, and never had been, a member of the Westminster Reform Club, but a correspondent of the Chronicle gives the follow- ing account of his connexion with that society.

"On the 2d July last, Mr. Disraeli was elected a member of the Westmin- ster Reform Club, having been proposed by his friend, Henry Lytton Bulwer, Esq., M. P., and seconded by one of the most honest Reformers in the kingdom, Dr. John Elmore. His election was intimated to him in the usual way, by the Secretary of the Club, with a request to pay his entrance-money and subscrip- tion. The latter ceremony he, however, neglected to do ; and after repeated applications for the money, a letter, of which the following is a copy, was re- ceived by the Secretary to the Club.

• 3, Park Street. Grosvenor Square. Jan. 29,

• Sir—Having received a letter from you this morning, apprising me that I am a threatened defaulter in the matter of the Westminster Club, 1 beg to inform you, that I never entered the walls of the clubhouse but once, and that was with the intention of paying my admission-fee and subscription. On that occasion. I was informed that the Secretary was absent in Ireland; and I freely confess to you, that I was thou um able to obtain any satisfactory evidence that the Club has a bond fide existence. If, however, I have been acting under a misapprehension, and I am to understand that the Club really exists, without any view of irumediate dissolution, I shall be happy to forward the cheque which you require.

' I am, Sir, yours, &c. B. D'Isasxr.r.'

" So wrote Mr. D'Israeli on the 29th January ; in reply to which, he was informed (but without reminding him that he had frequented the Club, em- ployed its servants, and of other particulars not necessary here to mention), that the Club not only was in existence, but with the certainty of success ; the con- sequence of which was, that on the 8th March he wrote the following letter to the Secretary. ' Sir—I enclose you a draft for the sum you require; and as my engagements have not permitmil me to avail myself of the conveniences of the Westminster Club, I shall feel obliged by your doing me the favour of withdrawing my name from the list of the

members of the Society. I um, Sir, yours, 8.:c. 'Ii. DISRAELI.'

" The cheque, as sent, was immediately returned, with an assurance, that if it did not suit him to belong to the Club, it was not the wish of its members to have his money. Thus the matter rests ; and contrasting the facts now set forth with Mr. D'Israeli's declaration at 'Taunton, it will, I apprehend, be un- necessary for him to write another pamphlet to prove to the world, What is lie.'"

Perhaps Mr. D'Israeli can give some explanation of all this : it seems necessary to his character as an honest man.