§ Mr.Wakleywished, with the permission of the House, to call its attention to a letter from the late Lord President of the Court of Sessions in Scotland. That learned individual had addressed him in the following terms:—
Edinburgh, Feb. 14,1842.Sir—As you appear to me to act in Parliament quite independently of party feelings, and as I fear that many may draw the same inference which you have done from the motion for the returns moved for by Mr. Maule having been refused (I dare say on good Parliamentary grounds), I am sure that, if a proper opportunity occur, you will be glad to state in the House of Commons, that I have assured you that during the eleven years since the trial of civil causes by jury belonging to the first division of the Court of Session devolved upon me, there have only been three cases, as far as I know, or can now ascertain, in which any other Judge sat or presided for me. With these exceptions, I tried every one of them. In one of those three a possible interest of a very near relation prevented me from sitting. In the other two, casual indisposition, which did not last for three days on either occasion, prevented me. If Mr. Maule's motion had been granted, and if it had included the trials in all of which I presided in August last (for his motion limited the returns to the 31st of July), there would have been only one case in which any other Judge sat for me.I have the honour to be, Sir,Your most obedient,C. HOPE.Thomas Wakley, Esq., M.P."638 He had great pleasure in reading the letter, and he could assure the House that the part he took in this case was only on public grounds. It would now be seen that this whole case had originated in misapprehension.
§ Sir R. Peelsaid, he wished t omakean observation in reference to this subject. The right hon. Gentleman opposite could probably recollect that he had asked him, on a previous night, whether, during the period when he held office in 1834 and 1835, the Lord President had not signified to him his intention to resign office. He then stated that he had no recollection of such a circumstance, but he had since received a communication from the Lord President, stating that he had never made any such proposal, and that he might therefore have given the most peremptory contradiction to the statement.
§ Mr. F. Maulesaid what had just fallen from the right hon. Baronet was rather an answer to a question which he had put in debate, than a contradiction of any thing which he had stated. He was as much pleased with that statement as any friend of the Lord President could possibly be, setting at rest, as it did, a report which had been very prevalent in Scotland. No one now was more convinced than himself of the misrepresentation which had taken place, and no one accepted the refutation with greater satisfaction. He was not sorry to hear the letter which had been read by the hon. Member for Finsbury, and in the absence of all official information, whatever may be his opinion with reference to the conduct of the retired judge in remaining in office, as he thought, after his powers had failed, he should be the last man either in that House or out of doors to question the integrity of that individual's word, which had never been tarnished. He, therefore, should at once assume the letter of the late Lord President to give the information which the official returns would have afforded. He had no hesitation in stating now, as he had before done, that so far as the late Lord President's actual presence in the Jury Court in Edinburgh was concerned, he had been thus led by wrong information into an error which he sincerely regretted. He was extremely sorry that he had mooted that subject, and he trusted that it would now be set right.