§ The Hertford Disfranchisement Bill was brought up from the Commons.
The Earl of Malmesbury, with a view to the discussion of this Bill, moved that there be laid on the Table of that House the indictment and other proceedings in the case of James Russell, who was tried 1285 in the sittings after last Hilary Term for perjury, committed before the Election Committee in the borough of Hertford.
The Lord Chancellorwould in a moment explain to the noble Earl why this Motion could not be granted. The judgment in the case had not been pronounced, so that the indictment could not be now produced. The only way in which a conviction was ever proveable was by the production of the postea when finally entered up, which was, in fact, the production of the whole record, including the verdict of the Jury and the judgment of the Court. There was an instance of the sort last year, which, probably a noble Earl (Earl Eldon) then in the House would well remember. The record could not be produced till the proceedings were complete, for there might be a motion in arrest of judgment, and till the judgment was finally entered up, no one could say what the result might be. The noble Earl, however, might perhaps accomplish his object in another way. There was a course—he knew it had been objected to by the Judges—but there was a course of moving for the production of the Judge's notes at the trial. There might be an objection even to that if that trial never led to a complete proceeding. He, therefore, urged the noble Earl to let the matter stand over.
§ Lord Denmansaid, that it would be more convenient to allow the matter to stand over for a few days. It appeared to him, he must confess, a new suggestion, that the Judges' notes should be produced. He thought there were many strong objections to such a course, but he understood that it had been before adopted. He might mention that a great many of these notes might be in themselves imperfect, in consequence of references being made in them to documents which, though read at the trial, were of course not written down by the Judge. He might, perhaps, with reference to the particular case now under consideration, say, that he remembered the circumstance that a person of the name of Russell, had been convicted before him on a charge of perjury, stated to have been committed by him before the Hertford Election Committee. That statement would show the probability that, at no distant time, the defendant would be brought up for judgment, when the record of the conviction might be obtained; but if anything should occur to prevent that judgment being given, another course might then be adopted, with the view of giving their Lordships the information they desired.
§ Motion withdrawn.