The Sun.
London, England, 1867-02-13 00:00:00

IRPERIAL PARLIAMEN

HOUSE OF LORDS—LIsr EVENING.
Tha Lonn CILINCELLOR took his seat on the Woolsack
at 5 o'clock.

THE LORD CHIEF BARON.

Earl RUSSELL presented a petition praying that the
Lord Chief Baron should be dismissed from the distinguished
judicial functions which he has been called on to exercise,
in consequence of his conduct in reference to the sub-
jects connected with the matters relating to Mr. Wason.
He considered that any ono occupying the position of the
Lord Chief Baron should not be open to anything like sus-
picion, and the circumstances out of which the present pro-
ceedings arose were of a nature calculated to excite suspicion.
The noble lord then went into a detail of all the facts con-
nected with the Parliamentary proceedings relating to the
inquiry respecting the Ipswich election in 1837, and the
part which Sir Fitzroy Kelly took iu regard to the same.
The LORD CHANCELLOR said he had received from
the Lord Chief Baron information which enabled him to
refute the allegations contained in the petition. He must
say he thought it would have better become the noble earl
if he had refrained from presenting a petition, every alle-
gation of which ho afterwards went on to refute. Assum-
ing every word in the petition was as true as he should
prove it to be false, the circumstances referred to took place
30 years ago. During that period Sir F. Kelly had twice
filled the office of Solicitor-General. He has also stood six
contests for the county of Suffolk, and if there is any stain
on a man's moral character it is certain to be brought to
light at such a time. It is difficult to understand why, if
Mr. Wason believed in the charges he now made, he did
not bring them forward when Sir F. Kelly received his
first official appointment, for he must have known such an
appointment conferred a sort of inchoate right to subse-
quent elevation to the bench. Ho was convinced that some
motives of other than a public character must have led Mr.
Wason to bring forward his present charge after keeping
silence so long; and ho had asked Sir F. Kelly for an ex-
planation of the circumstance. It appeared that in 1837
Sir F. Kelly, then Mr. Kelly, stood for the borough of

Ipswich. Mr. Wason, who was the candidate on the other
side, having publicly accused him of tolling a lie, Sir F.
Kelly sent him a challenge. Mr. Wason, being either re-
gardless of public opinion as it then was, or being mindful
of the Christian precept, "Be not highmiadod, but timid,"
refused to accept the challenge. He was therefore posted
as a liar and a coward. Upon that he flew for protection
to the courts, and applied for a criminal information
against Mr. Kelly for endeavouring to provoke him
to fight a duel. It was not because the court
thought that ho was not likely to be so provoked that
they discharged the rule, which they did on other
grounds. This is the source of the rancarous malice
which the petitioner has been nourishing for more than
thirty years ; crouching, waiting for his spring, until he
thought he could inflict the most deadly blow on the cha-
racter of his right hon. friend. The first charge in the
petition is that Mr. Kelly did on the 11th April, 1835,
pledge his honour to a statement which he knew to be
false, and did thus deceive an election committee of the
House of Commons. And in a letter to Mr. Walpole it is
explained by Mr. Wason that the false statement alleged to
have been made by Mr. Kelly was that he did not know a
certain Mr. Pilgrim, who was subsequently proved to have
acted as his agent at the election. Now it is perfectly un-
true that Sir F. Kelly ever denied that he knew Mr. Pil-
grim. On the contrary, he spoke of him as a clerk to
Messrs. Blake and Sewell, from whom he had been in the
habit of receiving briefs for many years. All that he did
wee, while acting as his own counsel in the absence of the
gentleman who should have represented him before the
committee, to insist that there was no evidence to prove
the agency of Pilgrim, and that therefore the eittingmem-
bers were not answerable for his nets. The committee
came to the same conclusion, and then adjourned for the
scrutiny. Before they re-assembled, Mr Pilgrim, having
had a charge of embezzlement preferred against him by his
employers, went over to the enemy's camp, proffered him-
self as a witness, and proved a particular act of bribery,
and also his own agency. Under these circumstances the
committee had no other choice than to rescind their pre-
vious resolution. But it is proved beyond a doubt by Mr.
Gurney's shorthand notes that Sir Fitzroy, then Mr.
Kelly, did not in the course of the speech he had made
before they adjourned deny his knowledge of Pilgrim, and
that ho could not have done so was clear from the fact,
that when the committee reassembled no disgust was ex-
pressed at his again appearing before them, as must have
been the case had he uttered the falsehood with which be
was charged. The second charge in the petition is
founded on an observation said to have fallen from the
late Lord Denman in the course of the argument on
the criminal information against Mr. Wason ; but the
fact is the observation had not the slightest refe-
rence to Sir F. Kelly, but was merely addressed to an
argument of the then Attorney-General, who was counsel in
the case, and amounted to no more than a strong expression
of Lord Demean's opinion that, if a gentleman stated that
which he knew to be false, it did not in the least matter
whether he did or did not preface his words by any form of
asseveration. The third charge in the petition is that the
late Sir R. Peel positively refused to appoint Sir F. Kelly
Solicitor-General on account of his conduct before the Ips-
wich election committee, and that the scruples of the right
hon. gentleman wore only overcome by fraud, or, as Mr.
-Watson said in his letter to the present Homo Secretary,
" by as discreditable a dodge as was ever practised by men
in high position." Mr. Watson asserts that some one palmed
off upon Sir R. Peel, as a full report of the Ipswich case, a
blue-book which did not contain the speech of Mr. Kelly.
Now, he (the Lord Chancellor) was in a position to refute
this charge. Ho was Solicitor-General when Sir W. Follett
died, in 1845. The funeral took place on the 4th of July.
Immediately afterwards he attended Sir R. Peel at White-
hall, and received from the right hon. baronet the intima-
tion that ho was to be advanced—to be Attorney-General.
He then said, "Who is to be my Solicitor-General 2" to
which Sir R. Peel immediately replied, "Kelly." And on
that very day, the 4th of July, his learned friend received
from Sir Peel the notification of his appointment. There
was therefore no delay in the appointment—still less was
there any delay, because of Sir E. Peel's reluctance to ap-
point his learned friend on account of rumours affecting his
character. If his learned friend had been guilty of the con-
duct stated in this petition he would indeed have been un-
worthy to be raised to the judicial bench. But what could
their lordships think of the petitioner, Mr. Wason, who had
been now waiting for 30 years for an opportunity to bring
forward charges of this description when they aro likely
to be most injurious to the reputation of Sir F. Kelly ?
He thought they would be of opinion that the course ho
has pursued on this occasion has underrated the accuracy
of the character with which he was branded in 1837.
Ho has at last drawn out the poisonous shaft which has
been steeped in venom so long. He has aimed at the Lord
Chief Baron, but it has fallen harmless to the ground; and
his petition will remain on their lordships' table only as a
perpetual record of his folly and malignity. (Hear, hear.)
Lord ST. LEONARDS said that if the petition remained
on the table of the house it would be impossible for the
Chief Baron to retain his seat on the bench unless steps
were taken to clear his character from the charges brought
against him. He therefore appealed to Earl Russell to
withdraw the petition if he were convinced, as he must be,
that these charges are unfounded. He need not enter into
an examination of the points which had been so fully dis-
cussed by the Lord Chancellor; but there was another to
which he would advert. Mr. Wason asserts that Sir R.
Peel hesitated to appoint Mr. Kelly as Solicitor-General,
and that he was only induced to do so by the influence of
Lord Lonsdale, who was then a member of the Cabinet.
Lord Lonsdale, however, denied that anything of the kind
ever occurred ; and it was indeed perfectly impossible that
if Sir F. Kelly had been guilty of the conduct imputed to
him he should have been six times elected member for the
county of Suffolk without a word being whispered against
his character.
Earl RUSSELL vindicated his conduct in presenting
the petition, on the ground that it did not relate to mat-
ters of private scandal, but contained charges against a
gentleman filling an important public office. In his opinion
it was much better than when such charges are made they
should be brought forward and refuted. The noble lord
on the woolsack had refuted Mr. Wason's allegations, and
shown them to be totally unfounded, and he thought that
it was much better that such a result should have been
attained than that the petitioner should have been enabled
to say that no hearing bad been given to his complaints.
He was quite ready to withdraw the petition if such a
course was consistent with the practice of the house and
with
the feelings of noble lords present—a point on
which be would be guided by the opinion of the Earl
of Derby. lie was fully satisfied that the conduct of
the learned judge against whom these charges had boon
brought remains unstained, and that her Majesty's subjects
may have full confidence in his administration ju
stice,
not ju t' e
not only on account of his knowledge of law, but of
his
high character.
Thia E:trl of DERBY said that if lie rem) in the position
of the noble earl, and had felt it his duty to present this
petition, he should certainly now feel it his duty to with-
draw it after the discussion that had taken place. After
the complete refutation which Mr. Watson's charges had
received, the House of Lords would only consult its dignity
by refusing to all such scandalous, slanderous, and
calumnious statements to remain on the table.
Earl RUSSELL remarked that he was quite ready to
withdraw the petition.
The LORD CHANCELLOR, however, observed that
the more regular course would be to negative the motion.
THE THREATENED FENIAN RIOTS.
In answer to Lord STANLEY of ALDERLEY,
The Earl of DERBY said—l can gi7o your lordships
little information as to the events which have taken
place at Chester, beyond that which has already appeared
in the public papers. On Saturday morning Mr. Walpole
received information from Liverpool that there was con-
siderable excitement in that town, caused by an
extraordinary influx of strangers from Manchester,
Halifax, Seeleybridge, Preston, and other places, all
of whom had come into the town on no apparent busi-
ness, Stud bore a very suspicious aspect. In the
course of the afternoon it became evident that the
object of these parties was to go oil to Chester and take