The Marquess of Westmeathmoved to enforce the Order of the House for certain Returns of Records, which he had moved for from the Court of King's Bench in Ireland, but which Returns had not yet been made.
The Lord Chancellorsaid, that he had a communication with the Lord Chief Justice of the Court of King's Bench on the subject, and he found, that these Returns could not be made consistently with the public service. It appeared, that the Records in question were kept in a chest to which no one ever had access, except in 195 the presence of the Lord Chief Justice; and to comply with the Motion of the noble Marquess would require five or six months of the Lord Chief Justice's time. There were additional, and, in some respects, graver objections; and he had only waited to ascertain the exact nature of those objections in order to move the rescinding of the Order.
The Marquess of Westmeathsaid, he wanted the Returns in question, for the purpose of elucidating the conduct of an individual which individual happened to be the brother-in-law of the Lord Chief Justice. Serious inconveniences and denials of justice would be the result if Orders of that House, such as the present, were not complied with.
The Lord Chancellorobserved, that he now heard, for the first time, that the noble Marquess wanted these Returns for the purpose of founding upon them a charge against an individual. Was it a fair, or a parliamentary course, to move for such Returns without stating at the time the object for which they were required? Would it not have been just had the noble Marquess named the individual, stating the charge which he intended to prefer against him, and called upon their Lordships to aid him in his object, by ordering the Returns in question? Of the Lord Chief Justice of the Court of King's Bench in Ireland, he (the Lord Chancellor) knew nothing personally. But he knew his high character, and entertained for him the greatest respect; and he could not permit what had fallen from the noble Marquess to leave the slightest prejudice to remain on his mind respecting that learned and eminent Judge.
The Marquess of Westmeathdenied, that there was anything in what he had said which would bear the construction put upon it by the noble and learned Lord. He had no charge to bring against anyone; but he wanted the documents for which he had moved, in order to lay them before his Majesty's Government. Nor had he imputed any improper motive to the Lord Chief Justice; but he knew the general bias of relationship, although he did not mean to say, that it had any effect in the present instance. However, he had no disposition to inconvenience the learned Judge.
The Lord Chancellorobserved, that he had just been informed that the individual to whom the noble Marquess alluded was 196 not, in the most remote degree, connected with the Lord Chief Justice. It appeared from the noble Marquess's last statement, that he moved for these papers, not for the use and information of their Lordships (the only legitimate ground), but to assist himself, individually, in bringing a matter before his Majesty's Government. The noble Marquess needed not have come to the House for that; he would have had what he required on applying to the usual offices, and paying what, until they were abolished by Act of Parliament, were the proper fees. It was not for the convenience of the Lord Chief Justice, that it was necessary to rescind the Order, but for the good of the public. On the contrary, he (the Lord Chancellor) was quite sure, that, if the Order were enforced, the Lord Chief Justice would pass five or six of the easiest months of his professional life; for all he would have to do, would be to sit in a room during that period while a box was examined. But what would become of the business of the Court?
§ The Marquess of Westmeath withdrew his Motion.