HC Deb 15 February 1842 vol 60 cc445-8
Sir W. Rae

hoped that the House would extend its indulgence to him for a very few minutes, while he entered into an explanation with respect to a circumstance which occurred the other evening. The House would recollect that in the course of the debate which took place last week, a statement was made by a right hon. Gentleman, lately Under Secretary of State, with respect to the late Lord President of the Court of Session, to the effect, that that learned judge had not performed any essential part of the most important duty in the jury court during the last two years. He did not hesitate to rise and say, that he thought that this statement was erroneous, and without foundation, and also he said, that he did not think the erroneous statement was intentionally made by the right hon. Gentleman. He went further, and said, the late Lord President, down to a very late period of his holding his high office, regularly and uniformly discharged the duties appertaining to it. On the following day a motion was made by the same right hon. Gentleman to the effect, that, An humble address be presented to her Majesty, that she will be graciously pleased to give directions that there be laid before the House a return of the number of jury cases in the first division of the Court of Session, from the 1st day of January, 1839, to the 31st of July, 1841, specifying those in which the late Lord President of the Court of Session presided, and those in which any other, or what judge presided. A discussion arose on this motion, in the course of which it would be in the recollection of the House, strong allusions were made to him, and not made in the most delicate manner; that he had made statements which were not founded in fact. This seemed to be the impression which had been raised by this statement. He naturally felt uneasy under these circumstances; he might at the time have stated that the refusal to grant the papers called for was the act of her Majesty's Government, and they had refused to give them without consulting him in the least degree. As for the documents themselves, he was desirous that they should be produced, as there could be no difficulty in obtaining the information contained in them in another manner and without the slightest hesitation. He wished to give every publicity to the facts. Indeed, nothing could be so foolish as to attempt secrecy with respect to a document which might be obtained from the attorney's clerks. His attendance in that place rendered it impossible for him to speak at the time of the discussion from his own personal information; and he felt that it would be better to remain perfectly silent, than to make what might appear to be a qualified statement, when he had so strong a conviction that what he had formerly asserted was true, and not to attempt to remove the slur cast on him, until he could clearly convince the House. He had, therefore, written immediately after the debate to the Lord Justice Clerk; and his lordship, on receiving the letter, had taken to his councils the Solicitor-general of Scotland. He would read to the house that part of the reply which appeared to him to bear most immediately upon the question:— You are perfectly correct as to all the statements you made as to my father. He presided in all the jury trials, after the court rose in July last, in his division; was in court on one case till nearly nine at night, and out next morning at ten for the next trial, not one whit tired. It so happens that, after taxing our memories, neither the Solicitor-general nor I can recollect more than three jury causes in all Edinburgh in which any one has sat for my father since November, 1830, when jury trials devolved under your act upon him. Such was the statement he had received from such high authority as the Lord Justice Clerk of Scotland, and having made this statement he would not say more. He would not say one word of unkindness to the right hon. Gentleman, who, he regretted, was absent from the House from indisposition; but he must observe that the right hon. Gentleman seemed so urgent in the observations he had made, that he (the Lord Advocate) was determined to take measures to ascertain how the facts with reference to the matter really were, and he thought it right to lay those statements before the House.

Mr. Wakley

observed, that the other night the discussion arose on the motion for returns, which would, if produced, have set the question at rest, but the motion was opposed by the Colleagues of the learned Lord; who, therefore, was not justified in blaming his side Of the House. If the motion had not been opposed there could have been no imputation on the character of the learned Lord, and it was also probable that it would appear that no blame was imputable to the late Lord President. However, the statements made by the Lord Advocate were, as far as he (Mr. Wakley) was concerned, perfectly satisfactory.

Mr. Roebuck

said, he would take all the blame to himself with reference to the observations which were called indelicate by the learned Lord opposite. He objected to the refusal of the motion upon constitutional grounds, for he thought justice should be above suspicion, and if the motion was refused, he felt that suspicion would rest not only upon the Lord President, but upon the learned Lord. The explanation then made should have been made before.

Mr. Horsman

said, that his right hon. Friend, who was absent, had made a statement which he was justified in the eyes of the public in having made. It was, therefore, with the view of ascertaining the facts of the case, and to do justice to all parties, that his right hon. Friend, in a spirit which he thought that the House would appreciate, moved for these returns. The learned Lord now stated, that he wished that these returns had been granted; if such was his impression at the time, he (Mr. Horsman) was surprised that the learned Lord did not express himself to that effect, and he was still more surprised when he found the learned Lord had voted against the production of these returns.