§ SIR ROUNDELL PALMERSir, I hope the House will permit me to say a few words by way of explanation with reference to a matter that occurred in the course of the debate on Monday last. It may be in the recollection of the House that when my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Tiverton (Mr. Denman) was addressing the House, he stated, with reference to the Bill which was before the House last summer as to the Judicial Committee, that in the course of the debates on that measure he was asked by some one to place an Amendment on the Paper for the purpose of qualifying the Attorney General and ex-Attorneys General, and also the Solicitor General and ex-Solicitor General, while still members of the Bar, to be members of the Judicial Committee; and he also stated that the gentleman who made the application to him said that such Amendment was thought desirable by several persons, including myself. I now know that which I did not know at the time I interposed. I may say that I came in quickly from another part of the House, hearing my name mentioned, and perhaps did not hear accurately; but I now understand that he added—what I did not catch at the time—that he was told I felt a delicacy about proposing it because I was an ex-Attorney General. I immediately 877 felt it my duty to state that that was the first time I ever heard of such a thing, and that the thought of proposing, or recommending that such an Amendment should be introduced, had never crossed my mind. I need not tell the House that I am on the best possible terms with my hon. and learned Friend, for whom I have great esteem. I was perfectly certain that he had stated with accuracy the information which had been given to him, nor could I suppose that anyone would have intentionally misrepresented me in conversation with my hon. and learned Friend. I therefore endeavoured to see whether I could recall to my memory anything which could explain the statement which had been made to my hon. and learned Friend; and it did, soon afterwards, occur to me that there was a possible explanation, which on the same evening I personally communicated to him. He wishes that this explanation should be stated to the House, which I am very willing to do if the House will permit me. It was this—that while the Bill was passing through Parliament, before it came to the stage of the second reading here, I was almost daily in attendance upon the Judicial Committee in my professional capacity. When I am there I am in the habit, like other gentlemen, of talking to my professional friends and brethren whom I meet in the room appropriated for the Bar upon passing subjects of the day, and in the course of conversation with a gentleman, whose name I do not at this moment remember—and I have not asked my hon. and learned Friend the name of his informant—with reference to this Bill, after it was understood that the full salaries of Judges of Westminster Hall were to be given to the new members of the Judicial Committee, I perfectly recollect having expressed my own opinion that I no longer saw any reason for the restrictive qualifications in the Bill, and having said I was disposed to think that all persons whom the Queen has power to appoint Judges in any of the Superior Courts of Law or Equity should be equally eligible for these new appointments. This is, as far as my memory goes, what I said. No man can pretend to recollect the exact words which passed in such a conversation. What I said was not confidential. Those who heard it were perfectly at liberty to repeat what I 878 said. And I do not intend to impute to any person any intentional misrepresentation. But if I was supposed to have expressed an opinion in favour of so limited an enlargement of the qualification as that which would admit only past or present Law Officers of the Crown, while still excluding all other members of the Bar, I was much misunderstood. During the conversation the effect of the present qualification was noticed as excluding all members of the Bar, and I perfectly remember I did say that for that very reason, because there might be people who might think I might myself be ambitious of the situation, I would not take any part in suggesting any alteration of the measure. I certainly did not intend that any request or suggestion should be made to anyone else to do what I was unwilling to do myself; and until my hon. and learned Friend spoke I was not aware that anyone had done so. This I can assuredly say to the House—that if I have been supposed to have expressed an opinion in favour of a limited enlargement of the qualification so as to include only officers and past officers of the Crown, and nobody else, I was entirely misunderstood, as I was if it was supposed by anybody that it was my wish that any step should be taken in consequence of what I had said.
§ MR. DENMANThe explanation which my hon. and learned Friend has been kind enough to give is perfectly satisfactory to me, because it is very clear to me that that which he remembers now is the conversation which gave rise to the report referred to by me in the words I spoke the other night. I believe he did not hear at the moment the words I quoted alluding to his unwillingness to propose an Amendment himself, which have since brought back to his recollection that a conversation had occurred which I have not the slightest doubt was the conversation which was represented to me in the shape in which I quoted it. Allow me further to say I must apologize to my hon. and learned Friend for having quoted his name in the House without having given him Notice I would do so. I really had no intention when I rose to mention his name. It was not until I heard some ironical cheers that I went more into detail than I intended.