correspondence on which that charge was based in order
560
that Your Lordship might form your own judgment as to
whether it bore the construction Sir F. Piggott had placed
upon it.
I do not propose to make any de-
-tailed observations upon Sir F. Piggott's lengthy Memo-
-randum, since the greater part of it deals with matters
wholly unconnected with the circumstances of the letter to
the Press, on which Your Lordship called for his explana-
-tion. I may, however, point out that the letter of
February 29th. from the Chamber of Commerce was not in
reply to any communication from the Government, but
obviously refers to the published correspondence between
that Body and certain Solicitors.
Sir F. Piggott reiterates his
allegation that this Government shows an habitual want of
consideration towards the Chief Justice - as for instance
at the end of paragraph 7 when he accuses the Government of
acquiescing in the delay of the Chamber of Commerce to
reply to the letter from Government which had been address-
-ed to them. Yet in the previous paragraph he admits that
he was informed that the Government had "repeatedly press-
-ed" for an immediate reply, a position incompatible
with
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.