§ Mr. Broughamsaid, he had that morning read in the public papers an account of a transaction, which, whether it were true or false, was of such a nature, that every man who had a due regard to the prerogative of the Crown, the privileges of parliament, and the purity of the administration of justice, must see it could not be allowed to pass without notice. He alluded to a letter purporting to be written by William Saurin, at that time filling the high situation of attorney-general in Ireland, and purporting to be addressed to no less a personage than lord Norbury, the chief justice in the court of Common Pleas in the same country. The purport of the letter was con- 1407 tained in certain extracts from another letter, written by a peer of the realm (lord Rosse), suggesting to his lordship to exert the influence of his official situation, whilst going on the circuit as judge, to mingle himself up with political conversations, and more especially to interfere with principles affecting the House of Commons, as being connected with the return of members to parliament. He trusted that it was unnecessary for him to apologise for giving an opportunity to his majesty's government, to explain these circumstances, and to deny, if they could, the authenticity of the letter: If the authenticity of the letter were not denied, and if it were really received by the party to whom it was addressed, then he hoped that there was another document also in existence, he meant the answer, a document which he was certain would have been in existence, had a letter with one-thousandth part of the portentous contents of this letter been addressed to any one of the reverend judges of England. Had the letter, of which he complained, only existed in private circles, he should have been doubtful how to treat it.
Mr. Secretary Peeldid not know whether, it was incumbent upon him as secretary of state, to answer the question of the learned gentleman; but as the personal friend of Mr. Saurin, he could not sit silent after it had been asked. As might naturally be expected, he was not prepared either to admit or dispute the genuineness of the letter in question. He could believe the learned gentleman, when he said, that it was with pain and reluctance that he came forward to take notice of this document—a document purporting to be private, and yet found in the public streets—a document which the person who found—if such, indeed, were the fact,—ought to have returned to the owner, instead of publishing it as he had done. He could not say, he repeated, whether the letter was genuine or not; but this he would say, that he would rather, ten thousand times over, be the person who wrote that letter, even though it were ten thousand times worse, than the person who, after finding it in the street—if, indeed, he did find it there—made so infamous and disgraceful an use of it.