§ LORD HOTHAMwished to ask whether, on the appointment of Mr. Pashley to the office of Assistant Judge of the Middlesex Sessions, any condition was made as to the continuance of his private practice at the bar? He put the question because, in a public journal of large circulation in the metropolis, a letter appeared, the writer of which had enclosed his name to the editor, and which stated that, on the day before, the court over which Mr. Pashley presided adjourned for half an hour, in order to enable the learned Judge to go to Westminster Hall to transact private business of his own, and that on the following day, May 2, the counsel, jurors, parties, and witnesses were kept waiting from ten o'clock till half-past ten while the learned Judge was similarly occupied in Westminster Hall. No statement in answer to that letter had yet appeared. He would not contend that in the absence of any contradiction it was just to assume that the report was correct; but, as the subject was one of interest to all classes of Her Majesty's subjects, he thought the absence of any contradiction justified the course he had pursued. If the representations of this letter were not true, then it was due to the learned Judge that he should be relieved from the odium of this irregularity. If, on the other hand, they were correct, he would only express his own hope, and he believed also that of every Member of the House, that the right hon. Baronet would take steps to prevent the recurrence of a proceeding which was irreconcilable and inconsistent with the proper administration of justice.
§ SIR GEORGE GREYIn answer to the question put by my noble Friend, I have to answer that I made no stipulation with Mr. Pashley in appointing him to the office of Assistant Judge of the Middlesex Sessions that he should discontinue his private practice, and for this reason—that 269 he was appointed under an Act of Parliament which imposed no such restriction upon him. The Recorder of London, the Recorder of Bristol, with every other Recorder, and the Common Serjeant of London, have judicial business to perform quite as important as the Assistant Judge of the Middlesex Sussions, and they are not prevented from taking private practice. With reference to the allegations which are said to have appeared in the papers with regard to Mr. Pashley, I never heard of them until now. But I am informed by my learned Friend the Attorney General that Mr. Pashley has seen them, and has authorised my learned Friend to state that they are quite incorrect, and that the business of his court has not been impeded by his attention to his private practice. I quite admit that if any gentleman chooses to accept a judicial office he is bound to give his first attention to the duties of that office, and that he would be very culpable if he allowed his private practice and interests to stand in the way of the proper discharge of the duties of his office.