§ Sir J. Grahambegged to be allowed to address a few words to the House upon a matter personal to himself. It was most material that every statement made by a Member in that House, but more especially by a Minister of the Crown, should be strictly accurate. In the discussion which took place last night on the case of Jones, who was tried before Baron Gurney, 246 at Leicester, he (Sir J. Graham) stated positively that the learned judge had not made use of the phrase " mad dog," which was quoted by the hon. Member for Finsbury. In this assertion be found he was mistaken. He had had the honour of an interview with Baron Gurney to receive his explanation of the circumstances, but that was before any public allusion was made in the newspapers to the particular phrase quoted by the hon. Member for Finsbury. Since that time he had had no communication with Baron Gurney, and he spoke last night under the impression, which turned out to be erroneous, that the learned judge had disclaimed the use of the words. This morning he had received a letter from Baron Gurney, pointing out the error into which he (Sir James Graham) had fallen, and admitting that he (Baron Gurney) had made use of the phrase. The circumstance under which the phrase was used was this. The prisoner was charged, amongst other things, with attempting to excite popular ill-will against the police at Leicester. In his defence, he urged that he had not, directly, incited the populace to commit an overt act of violence against the police, though he bad held them up to contempt in general terms. The learned judge then used the phrase in question as a familiar illustration, to show to Jones, that it was not, as he supposed, necessary that an overt act of violence should be recommended, but that the very excitement was dangerous to the public peace, and, therefore, in contravention of the law. There was no doubt, however, about the use of the expression, and he was anxious to take the first opportunity of giving this explanation, and of stating that his denial on this point was made under a misconception of the facts.
§ Mr. T. Duncombesaid, that the phrase was used by the judge, when the prisoner was cross-examining the witness. The right hon. Baronet's explanation was quite satisfactory.