Lords Sitting of 11 April 1815

PETITION OF MR. JAMIESON.
The Petition of Mr. W. Jamieson, one of the writers to the Signet in Scotland, and now confined in the Cannongate gaol, complaining of the circumstances under which he was imprisoned, having been read,
Earl Stanhopeobserved, that he did not intend to offer any opinion upon the subject of this Petition. From its nature, however, he thought it due to justice, and to the petitioner, to have the documents to which it referred laid before their lordships, with a view to have the matter investigated. Were he, indeed, a member of the Court of Session, he should be anxious to become acquainted with such an accusation, and to have his conduct explained. It was his intention, therefore, to move that a copy of the Petition be transmitted to the Court of Session, accompanied, however, by an order, that the documents connected with the accusation should be transmitted to their lordships. In thus proceeding he was governed by the precedent of Judge Fox's case, in which that judge being accused, and being properly alive to the protection of his character, petitioned himself for a copy of the accusation. He trusted that the Scotch judges equally valued their reputation, and would be desirous for an opportunity of vindicating themselves against a charge of this nature. If the course of proceeding which he proposed were deemed objectionable, and that any other noble lord should suggest a better course, the noble earl expressed his disposition to accede to it.
The Lord Chancellorthought it impossible to comply with the noble earl's motion. The petitioner appeared to have been committed for a contempt of court, and he presumed their lordships would not be disposed to interfere with such a committal. Indeed, he should conceive it inconsistent with the dignity of that House, and the respect due to the Court of Session, to interfere at all upon this subject. No grounds were stated to justify such an interference; and he hoped the House would recollect the difficulty in which it was involved in Judge Fox's case, when, after proceeding to a certain extent, it was found that it could not go on with effect. The first question in this case was, whether there ought to be any proceeding at all; and he deprecated an interposition of this nature with the conduct of judges, not so much for the sake of the judges themselves, as for the sake of suitors, whose interest must always be affected by the entertainment of charges upon light grounds against those who were appointed to administer the justice of the country. If a judge really deserved accusation, he ought, in his view, to be

493]
proceeded against in a much more formal and grave manner than the noble earl proposed.
The Earl of Lauderdatethought the better mode would be to move for all the acts of sederunt with regard to the petitioner, because it appeared that the petitioner was committed by an order of the Court of Session, and not by that branch of the court to which he had appealed, and which was competent by the late statute to commit him, had he been guilty of contempt. The petitioner's committal, therefore, did not afford evidence of contempt. But he was anxious for some inquiry respecting those acts of sederunt generally, because he understood that great abuses of power were connected with them.
After a few further observations from the Lord Chancellor, who urged the propriety rather of a distinct motion to settle the law respecting the acts of sederunt without any connexion with this case, and of lord Melville also against the motion, with a remark from lord Lauderdale that the petitioner did not make out a case to warrant the interference of the House, the motion was negatived, as was a motion also of earl Stanhope for copies of the acts of sederunt with respect to Mr. Jamieson.