§ Mr. Gisbornesaid, that in rising to move that the Order of the Day for the further consideration of the Report of the Ipswich Committee be now read, he was aware that he had no claim again to address the House, but he hoped that he should be indulged while he made a few remarks, which he should endeavour to make as brief as the nature of the subject allowed.
The Order of the Day having been read,
§ Mr. Gisbornethought it necessary to make a few remarks in consequence of the right hon. Baronet opposite (Sir Robert Peel) having, on the previous night, said, that if he (Mr. Gisborne) could come down to the House, armed with the precedents for the plan which he proposed, the right hon. Baronet should not feel disposed to oppose his motion. Now it so happened that he came down, certainly not armed with many precedents, for he had been able to find but one precedent upon this point in existence; and he had to state, that he had come to the conclusion that there was only the one case—not on his own judgment and research alone—but after consulting with several gentlemen who had the best opportunities of knowing if any other precedents existed or not. The fact was, it was well known that in many cases the parties had absconded in order to avoid the Speaker's warrant; but it was a point very difficult to be brought home to the delinquents; and he, with the assistance of those gentlemen to whom he had already alluded, had been able to discover but one single case, and that had been alluded to last night by the right hon. Baronet, which bore directly upon the present case. The case to which he referred was that of Camelford, in which William Hallett was taken into custody on the ground of his having absconded to avoid being served with the Speaker's warrant. That was a case completely in point; and in all its circumstances completely analogous with the case of the parties who had absconded to avoid being served with the Speaker's warrant in the present instance. The difference drawn last night between the cases by the late Solicitor-general and another hon. Member, appeared to be perfectly untenable. They argued that a distinction was to be drawn between the parties who 664 absconded to avoid being served with the Speaker's warrant, and those who neglected to appear after having been served with it. Now he could not see why a difference should be made between the man who was cunning enough to escape without being served with the writ, and the man who was sufficiently clumsy to resort to the desperate expedient of absconding after the writ was served. But upon this subject he begged to call the attention of the House to an authority which must have the greatest weight with that House—he meant the authority of the predecessor of the right hon. Gentleman who now filled the Chair. In the case which he (Mr. Gisborne) had alluded to, it happened that William Hallett, upon being taken into custody, alleged as an excuse for not obeying the Speaker's notice, that he had sustained severe bodily injuries which prevented him from doing so, and he alleged also that he had not been served with the Speaker's warrant. When this person was brought up to the Bar of the House, the predecessor to the right hon. Gentleman now in the Chair, addressed Hallett as follows:—"William Hallett, the offence for which you stand committed to the custody of the Serjeant-at-arms is of the most grave and serious description, insulting to the dignity and authority of the House, and an endeavour, as far as in you lay, to impede the course of public justice. You allege in mitigation of your misconduct, that you were not served with the order for attendance; this statement is doubtless correct, but you were reported by a Committee of this House, appointed to try the Camelford election petition, as having wilfully ab-absconded with a view to avoid the service of such order. Be not, therefore, misled yourself, and think not to mislead the House by so vain and futile a distinction. It is no extenuation of your misconduct, and no reparation to public justice, that you did not aggravate your offence by open disobedience. I will only add that this is an attempt that never can succeed in attaining the object at which it aims. The only result in which it can terminate, as it has terminated in your case, is in the disgrace and punishment of the individual who is hardy enough to venture upon it."* He was glad to have such authority as that in favour of the views which he (Mr.
* Hansard, vol. xl., p. 1427.665 Gisborne) entertained upon this subject. The Question before the House was, therefore, simply this:—First, whether the House should take any further cognizance of this subject? and, secondly, whether the House ought to take measures in regard to it immediately, or wait until the evidence taken before the Committee was laid before it? Now, with respect to the first of these questions, he considered that it was absolutely necessary that the House should, without any delay, take some decisive step. He said so the more emphatically, because one part of the argument of the right hon. Baronet last night was, that he did not believe that the parties in this case who had absconded were punishable by the House. It was absolutely necessary, therefore, that the House should settle this Question. It was necessary that it should do so, because it was the only way in which the House could vindicate its power. It was understood that by common law no redress could be had, and it was therefore to be shown that the House could vindicate its undoubted rights. He thought, therefore, that no course was left to the House to pursue, but that, such a report having been made by a Committee of its own Members, they should proceed to ulterior measures for the purpose of vindicating their own power. The second question was, whether they were to wait till the evidence taken before the Committee was before them, or whether, upon the Report made by the Committee, they should at once proceed to take steps to bring those persons to justice? He had no doubt that the former of those propositions was the proper course for the House to pursue. He thought that the resolution of the Committee was sufficient to justify them in proceeding instantly against the parties. It was not to be thought that it was proposed that those parties should be brought up to the Bar of the House by way of punishment. That was not the case; but they should be brought up upon the same footing with Hallet. He was not taken up by way of punishment, but in order to explain the position in which he was placed and to defend himself. That person had been brought to the Bar of the House, where he had been allowed to explain his conduct, and to give the best account he could of himself, as well as to bring what evidence he pleased in his own behalf; but he was 666 not treated as a person guilty of the crimes imputed to him. This was the view which he wished all those Members to take of this Question who thought as he (Mr. Gisborne) did in regard to it. He wished that the evidence taken before the Committee should be left entirely out of view. For his own pan he acted in this matter as if he knew nothing of the evidence taken before the Committee. He based his motion solely upon the report of the Committee, and he hoped that all who agreed with him would do the same; because if they once based die argument upon the evidence which had been taken before the Committee, they ought certainly to wait until the evidence itself was brought before them. He thought, therefore, that the Question simply resolved itself into this—whether they ought to proceed on the report of the Committee, or ought to wait for the evidence? and in his opinion they ought not to wait. There was one point which had been urged by hon. Members, as to whether the parties who were accused of absconding had been represented before the Committee or not. Technically speaking, he admitted that it might be said that they had not been represented; but could anybody say, that with all the evidence produced in favour of the sitting Members—with all the witnesses, counsel, and agents who were before that Committee, that the interests of these parties were not as completely represented as if they were themselves actually and legally before it? Could it be supposed that Sparrow and Clipperton, who were the agents for the sitting Members, and Mr. O'Mally, who was their counsel, were not completely represented? And did any hon. Member who then heard him, doubt that although (as the right hon. Baronet had stated) these persons were not technically represented that the evidence taken before the Committee was as much in their favour as in favour of the sitting Members: and that it was upon the evidence so given that the Committee had found that the one party was guilty of absconding, and the other of bribery and corruption? The Question, therefore, simply was, whether they, acting in the capacity of Judges, ought to bring those persons to the bar of the House; and he had no hesitation in saying, that there never was a case in which they were more called upon to do so. He had promised not to detain the House, and he 667 would, therefore, at once state, that with its leave, he would propose to alter the proposition which he had submitted to its consideration last night. He proposed to alter his resolution, by leaving out the words, "for the said several and respective offences," which would do away with any appearance of the case of those persons having been prejudged. Being called upon suddenly to make a Motion upon this subject, he had taken the words of former precedents, but he admitted that it might be an improvement upon his Motion, if no difference was made in the cases of those persons who were reported by the Committee; he saw no reason, therefore, as the House was to act not upon the evidence taken before the Committee, but upon the Committee's Report, why any difference should be made between their case and that of the others who were reported. He would therefore move, that the names of J. B. Dasent, and John Pilgrim, be added to those whom he had formerly moved should be taken into custody, as he saw no reason why, in this view of the case they should be omitted.
§ Mr. Patrick M. Stewartsaid, that, with regard to what had been said by the hon. Member for Derbyshire, as to its being usual for any Member, placed in the situation which he (Mr. Stewart) had the honour of occupying—that of Chairman of the Committee, to institute proceedings against parties implicated, he hoped it would be in the recollection of the House that on the previous night he had declined making any Motion, on the ground of his having no instructions upon the subject from the Committee, and that he left the subject to the determination of the House, and would abide by its decision. He had now to state that he would abide by the Report of the Committee, and that he had no doubt that every Member of the Committee was also ready to abide by it, and vote in favour of the Motion of the hon. Member.
§ Lord John Russellthought that his hon. Friend, the Member for Derbyshire, had shown a sound discretion in leaving out the words which he had excluded from his Motion. He thought that it had been shown that the House had done well in taking a day to deliberate upon the subject, not only in order that they might have an opportunity of referring to former precedents, but that they might show that 668 they had a sufficient regard for the case of the individuals; and he thought that the House was justified in taking those witnesses who absconded to avoid the Speaker's warrant into custody, as well as witnesses who neglected to obey the summons after it had been served upon them. If witnesses were allowed to get out of the way, justice would be impeded and the powers of the House would be ineffectual. On these grounds he thought that the House was justified in agreeing to the hon. Member's Motion, which was conformable to precedent, and therefore he cordially gave it his support.
§ Sir Robert Peelrejoiced at the delay which had taken place in coming to a decision upon this Question, and he was sure that there was no one in the House who would more sincerely rejoice at the delay than the hon. Member for Derbyshire himself, as it gave him the opportunity of making two important alterations in his Motion. He had contended that the House ought not to prejudge the case of these persons; and the hon. Member, acting upon that feeling, had omitted from his Motion the words "for these their alleged offences," thereby as far as possible avoiding the appearance of prejudging their case. Another alteration which the hon. Member had made was, that he did not now except any of those persons who were mentioned as guilty in the Report of the Committee from the effect of his Motion, but very properly included the whole. In both these points he thought that the hon. Member had materially improved his Motion. In the case of Camelford no charge was specified in bringing Hallett to the Bar; and the hon. Member, therefore, was in exact conformity with that precedent in omitting the words to which he had alluded. Considering also the terms in which the Speaker had addressed Hallet—and the Speaker was undoubtedly a high authority—he considered that the hon. Member was also justified in the course he had followed in that respect. Yet he could not help thinking, upon the whole, that it would be more satisfactory if the House heard the evidence before they ordered those persons into custody. And they had a precedent for that course. In the Grantham case, when a Motion was made that upon the Report of the Committee the person who absconded in order to avoid being served with the Speaker's 669 warrant should be taken into custody, in that case the House did not order that the parties should be taken in custody upon the Report of the Committee, but it followed a course which he considered more conformable to justice. The House first heard the Report of the short-hand writer's note of the evidence taken before the Committee at the Bar of the House, and then it ordered the parties into custody. He thought that the same course should be followed in the present instance, as it would be more satisfactory, in a case where the loss of the liberty of a subject was involved, that the evidence should be heard. If the course now proposed was not simply preliminary, but assumed the offence charged, he thought the precedent of the Grantham case ought to be followed, and there was yet sufficient time for the House to adopt that course. He therefore repeated that he thought they ought to hear evidence at the Bar of the House. The hon. Member had alluded to the difference which he (Sir Robert Peel) had drawn between a person absconding before being served with a summons, and refusing to obey the summons after it had been served. He (Sir Robert Peel) could conceive a case where absconding was as criminal and dangerous as refusing to obey the summons when served; but the House ought to recollect that there was one manifest difference between the two cases. In the one case clear and undoubted evidence of the fact could be brought home to the individual, but the other was more difficult to be established. He admitted that where there was a conspiracy formed to abscond to avoid the Speaker's summons, the parties ought to be punished, but at the same time he felt bound to say that there ought to be evidence of the animus with which the act of absconding was performed; and all he contended for was, that evidence should be produced to show not only that the parties absconded, but that they absconded for the purpose of avoiding being served with the Speaker's warrant. If it were the opinion of the House that they should at once order these persons to be taken into custody without reading the evidence, he would not oppose the proposition; at the same time he thought that it might be as well to have the evidence read at the Bar. Before he sat down, he wished to ask the hon. Member for Derbyshire whether he intended to 670 proceed against the Magistrates for a breach of privilege?
§ Mr. Gisborneobserved that he had stated last night the course which he intended to pursue with respect to those magistrates, and with the permission of the House he would repeat what he had then said. He hoped that the House would agree with him that the case of the Magistrates was very different from that of the persons whose names were included in the resolution he had proposed, and that hon. Gentlemen would not oppose the present motion in consequence of the course he intended to pursue with respect to the Magistrates. He did not intend to propose that the same course should be pursued with respect to the Magistrates as to the other persons implicated by the Report of the Committee. The only reason which induced him to make this variation in the course of his proceedings, was that there was a difference in the words of the Committee with regard to them and the other persons. The Report directly implicated the conduct of the persons named in his resolution, but it stated that the Magistrates appeared to the Committee to be guilty of a breach of the privileges of this House. The Committee did not say that it was an actual breach of privilege, or in what degree it was a breach. Now he did not intend to propose that the course which he thought was unavoidable with regard to the other persons—namely, that they should be taken into the custody of the Serjeant-at-Arms—should be pursued towards the Magistrates, but the Magistrates should be called to the Bar to explain their conduct in this matter. He belived that this would remove the objection of the right hon. Baronet.
§ Sir Robert Peelwas by no means satisfied that the House would be justified in calling upon the Magistrates to attend in this way. The hon. Gentleman might have some precedent for the course which he intended to pursue. He, however, wished to know, on the authority of the Chair, whether there was any instance in which the House had allowed any other tribunal than itself to judge or decide what was a breach of privilege.
§ The Speakerremarked, that it was competent for a Select Committee appointed to inquire into the merits of a petition, in an election, to report to the House that certain parties had in its opinion 671 been guilty of a breach of privilege, but the House was not found, by the Act of Parliament under which the Election Committee was constituted, to take up or act upon any of the suggestions or recommendations of the Committee as to a breach of privilege. The House always examined for itself as to whether or not the conduct of persons involved a breach of privilege.
§ Sir Robert Peelsaid the point then was, whether the House should pay so much regard to the opinion of this Committee as to act upon it in this case? He would not, however, mix this with the other case. They ought to have something like a primâ facie case before they proceeded to act.
§ Mr. Montague Chapmanbegged to remark, as a member of the Committee, that it did not give a decided opinion on the subject, but merely stated that it appeared to the Committee to be a breach of privilege. If it were not a case of breach of privilege, it at least was a case of gross negligence and inattention to the orders of the House. The conduct pursued had occasioned great delay and inconvenience to the Committee. There certainly was a difference in the amount of guilt of the persons named in the resolution. Two of the persons, namely, Dasent and Pilgrim, had given evidence before the Committee. The former individual had come forward to give evidence after some delay before the Committee, while the latter, who had given the most important evidence, had been taken into custody. He trusted that the House would not pursue these persons with the same measure of severity as they did the others.
§ Mr. Gisborneobserved, that after what had been stated, he would not propose to proceed against the Magistrates before the evidence was printed.
The Solicitor-Generalagreed with the right bon. Baronet (Sir R. Peel) that it was becoming and necessary in every proceeding like the present to act only upon the very best evidence which could be got. But for that very reason he thought it was better in the present case to depend upon the Report of the Committee, who heard the evidence orally delivered, and had an opportunity of observing the demeanour of the parties, than to trust to the mere reading of the short-hand notes taken by the reporter at those proceedings. This opinion was strictly in accordance with the 672 practice of the Courts, which always preferred an opinion founded upon evidence orally delivered, than upon a mere hearsay report of it. With respect to the case referred to by the right hon. Baronet, where it appeared the House caused the evidence taken before the Committee to be read to it, before it adopted any proceedings on the subject, he thought, though he would confess that he was not aware of the fact, yet he thought that it would very probably be found that the reason for the House's acting so in that case was this, that the Committee had actually made no report upon the subject, and that the proceedings before them were still pending. Therefore it was, perhaps, that, having no adjudication before them, the House was obliged to have recourse to the best testimony they could procure, namely, the report of the evidence taken before the Committee. He would observe that, as a lawyer, there were no proceedings which he viewed with a more unwelcome eye, or which the country more reluctantly took up, than cases of contempt. At the same time, however, he must express his opinion, that if ever there were a case of the kind which called for visitation it was the present one. There were five or six individuals, aided and abetted by the agents and solicitors of the parties engaged in the contest, and also, he was grieved to say, by a gentleman belonging to the honourable profession of the Bar, charged with avoiding, he would almost say by conspiracy, the service of the Speaker's warrant. The case was such that did it not actually come within the reach of a criminal indictment for conspiracy, it only escaped doing so by reason of some legal technicalities, the existence of which he regretted.
Lord Stanleyagreed with the right hon. Baronet that the proceedings proposed to be adopted in the first instance by the Member for Derbyshire were not borne out by the case he had quoted as a precedent. The House, certainly, in the case of the Grantham Election, had proceeded to hear the evidence read over before they ordered the parties to be taken into custody; but, as the right hon. Baronet admitted, they had the case of the Camelford Election which exactly bore on the matter before the House. He felt bound, therefore, under all the circumstances of the case, to agree to the resolution moved by the hon. Member for Derbyshire, but he would not have done 673 so if the hon. Gentleman had not consented to strike out the words implying the assumption of the guilt of the parties named; he did not think, however, that there would be any serious objection to the amended Motion. In the case of Grantham, referred to by the right hon. Baronet, there was this material difference from the present case. It was reported from the Committee to the House that although due diligence had been used to reach the person to be summoned, yet that the attempts had not been successful. A Motion was therefore made, to take the party into custody. That Motion was, after some discussion, withdrawn, and the short-hand writer who attended the Committee was called in and ordered to read the evidence taken before the Committee on the subject of the serving of the Speaker's warrant on Sir William Manners. It was then ordered that Sir William Manners be taken into the custody of the Serjeant-at-Arms. Subsequently, on the persons sent by the Serjeant-at-Arms failing in their endeavours to arrest Sir William Manners being reported to him, that officer and his assistants were called in and examined, and the result was, that the House came to the resolution—"That it appeared to the House that Sir William Manners had absconded in order to avoid being taken into custody pursuant to an order of the House: therefore that an humble address be presented to his Majesty that he will be graciously pleased immediately to issue his Royal Proclamation, with such reward as his Majesty shall think proper, for discovering, apprehending, and detaining the said Sir William Manners. * This person was afterwards apprehended and committed to Newgate. There was this difference between this case and the one before the House, namely, that in the former the Committee had not come to a resolution on the subject, but had merely ordered that the absence of the witness should be reported lo the House. The parties, too, in the present case had gone out of the way so as to prevent their being taken into custody. There was, therefore, a broad distinction between the two cases; but the course now proposed to be pursued was completely borne out by the proceedings in the Camelford case. If it had not been for the precedent furnished by the case he had just
* Hansard (New Series) vol. ii. p. 292.674 named, he would have agreed with the right hon. Baronet as to the propriety of having the evidence taken before the Committee on the subject read at the bar.
§ The Attorney-Generalsaid, that he had been called upon last night by the right hon. Baronet to give his opinion as to the relative guilt of persons absconding from the service of the Speaker's warrant, and those who had had it served upon them and yet had not obeyed it. He remarked, on the spur of the moment, that he saw little difference in the magnitude of the offence. At that time he was not aware of the Camelford case, and of having the high authority of the late Speaker to support his opinion. In the matter now before the House, a prima facie case had been made out, and he was satisfied, from the reflection he had been able to bestow on subject since yesterday, that the parties were precisely in the same situation as persons against whom a Bill had been found by a Grand Jury, and were therefore in a situation which would justify their being deprived of their liberty. There was an analogous course of proceeding in Westminster-hall against persons who refused to obey the order of the Court. An attachment was issued, addressed to the sheriffs of counties, directing them to take the parties into custody, and when taken they had to appear before the Court to explain their conduct, and were liable to commitment to prison for contempt.
§ Mr. Jerviswished, before the question was put, to say a few words respecting an hon. and learned Gentleman who, by the decision of the Committee, was no longer a Member of the House, and, therefore, was unable to answer for himself. Many allusions had been made to a Speech delivered by Mr. Kelly before the Committee, but he was authorized by that Gentleman to say, that when he then spoke he appeared merely as an advocate, and he wished it distinctly to be understood that he only addressed the Committee in that capacity. He felt bound to say thus much in justification of the Gentleman he had alluded to, and he did it the more readily as they were political opponents.
§ Mr. Patrick Stewartalso wished to remark, that, as the Chairman of the Committee, he had always understood that Mr. Kelly appeared as a lawyer, and not as a party in the case.
§ The Motion as amended, was agreed to.