eing at Chislehurst.
Accordingly the Chancellor desired that the case might stand over
from Thursday, the day he first appointed it (giving only two
days' notice), to Monday, and that it should be notified to the
parties that if they did not then appear the case should go on
without them. Westmeath came to me in a frenzy of rage, and said
the Chancellor was the greatest of villains, and so he would tell
him in the House of Lords or in the Privy Council. I begged him
to hold his tongue, and I would speak to the Chancellor. So I
went to the House of Lords where he was sitting, and told
Lemarchant what had passed, and that the case ought not to be
thus hurried on. He thanked me very much, and said he would go to
Brougham; but he soon returned, and said that the Chancellor
would hear nothing, and would have the case brought on, and he
therefore advised me not to give myself any further concern in
it, and to leave him and Westmeath to settle it as they might. In
the meantime Westmeath went down to the House of Lords, and after
speaking to Wynford, whom the Chancellor had asked to attend (as
he learnt from me), was going to get up in the House of Lords and
attack him, and was only prevented by Wynford dragging him down
by the tail of his coat. I had already spoken to Wynford, and I
afterwards spoke to Lord Lansdowne, telling them that the case
ought not to be hurried on in this peremptory way, and I
persuaded Lord Lansdowne to set his face against it. However, in
the meantime Wynford had urged the Chancellor to put it off, and
not exasperate that madman, who would say or do something
violent; and, whether from reason or fear, he prevailed on him.
Wynford told me that Brougham is undoubtedly mad, and so I really
believe he is. While I was in the House of Lords Horne came in
from the Commons, and said they had succeeded in stifling there
all discussion on the rejection of the Tithe Bill by the House of
Lords. Grattan was going to introduce the subject, but was
prevailed on to say nothing, and to some questions put by Major
Beauclerck Althorp refused to reply.

[2] [The appellate jurisdiction in causes matrimonial was
vested at this time in the King in Council. The case of
Westmeath _v._ Westmeath, which was a suit for a
separation and a question of alimony, came up on appeal
from the Court of Arches.]

August 16th, 1834 {p.120}

[Page Head: LORD BROUGHAM.]

At a Council fo