HC Deb 15 July 1828 vol 19 cc1694-7
Mr. Hume

said, he was compelled to postpone presenting a petition complaining of proceedings in the Prerogative Court of Canterbury, and of the conduct of sir John Nicholl, of which he had given notice. Having been absent from town, he had not had time to see that the allegations in the petition were confirmed by affidavits. It was, therefore, his intention to postpone his motion till to-morrow.

Sir J. Nicholl

said, he was quite ready to meet any charge which might be preferred against him, and thought it rather hard that the hon. member should decline proceeding with his accusation that day, after having published a notice to that effect all over the kingdom. He could justify his conduct, he hoped, to the satisfaction of the House. Under the impression that the petition would have been that day presented, he had disposed of all the business of his court, and made arrangements to leave town with his family to-morrow. He should certainly expect the hon. gentleman to proceed according to his notice. He was ready to assume that the statements of the petition were confirmed by affidavit.

The Attorney-General

said, that the hon. member should have ascertained whether there were grounds for the complaint before he had given notice of presenting such a petition.

Sir J. Nicholl

said, the hon. member had given notice of a motion for that night, directed against him; and here he was in his place to meet the charge. But the hon. gentleman had postponed his motion, on the ground of his not being prepared with affidavits to substantiate his statements. He could not help thinking it hard that he and his family should be obliged to remain in town, in order to meet the convenience of the hon. gentleman. The hon. member ought to have satisfied himself, that the allegations contained in the petition were well founded, before he came forward to impugn the character of a gentleman who had filled a high judicial situation for twenty years, without the slightest imputation upon that character. Every one knew how painful such a charge was however triumphant might ultimately be the answer to it; for there were always to be found persons ready to believe that there existed some foundation for it. It was a grievous thing that there should exist in this country a lion's mouth, into which all sorts of vague accusations might be cast, and from which charges could proceed without the slightest foundation. If the hon. member did not bring forward his charge that night, he should not consider it necessary to remain in town, but should leave the matter in the hands of his hon. friends [cheers].

Mr. Hume

said, he had read the petition, and believed the allegations which it contained; but, because he thought it necessary to require explanation, that was not a ground for accusing him with acting harshly towards the right hon. gentleman.

Dr. Lushington

said, that if the hon. member had no other evidence respecting the transactions which formed the subject of the petition, than statements derived from the person who signed it, or from his solicitor, he was conversant with every part of the case which related to the right hon. judge, and he pledged his character to the fact, that there never had been a charge brought before the House, more totally destitute of truth. He should not do justice to the right hon. judge, in whose court he had practised for twenty years, if he did not avail himself of that opportunity, not only of bearing testimony to the assiduity, ability, and impartiality with which he had presided in that court, but also of stating that the petition in question came before the House under the name of an individual who was not its author. It came, in reality, from a pettifogging attorney, who had been guilty of perjury, and had attempted extortion.

Mr. Secretary Peel

said, that nothing could be more unjust than the course which the hon. gentleman had pursued. This was another abuse of the privileges of the House. After giving notice of a charge against the right hon. gentleman, was it fair in the hon. member to say he had been out of town, and was unable to make himself master of the accusation? The character of the right hon. judge was a sufficient protection against vague and groundless accusations: but such might not be the case in every instance.

Dr. Phillimore

said, it was an extreme grievance that a notice, like the one in question, should have been circulated all over the country. The right hon. judge had presided over his court for twenty years, and it was universally admitted, that in no court was justice more expeditiously or impartially administered. When this right hon. judge came down to meet a charge of which notice had been publicly given, the hon. member said he would put it off. If the hon. member did not bring it forward now, he was bound not to do so after the right hon. gentleman had left town.

Mr. Hume

said, that if the right hon. gentleman thought it worth while to vindicate his character, he would remain in town twenty-four hours for that purpose. He would present the petition on Tours- day, let the right hon. gentleman attend or not.