SIERRA LEONE—CASE OF THOMAS v. HUGGINS.—RESOLUTION. (Hansard, 3 August 1869)

§ MR. H. B. SHERIDAN

rose to call attention to the case of Samuel Thomas v. Horatio James Huggins, Assistant Judge of the Supreme Court at Sierra Leone, a report of which appeared in the "African Times," June 23rd, 1869, and generally the conduct of the said Mr. Huggins in his capacity of Judge. The hon. Gentleman said, Thomas, it appeared, had been induced to plead guilty to a charge of having stolen a coat and a pair of trousers, although no evidence had been called to prove the offence, in the expectation that he would be leniently dealt with. The leniency, however, which was extended to him by Mr. Huggins was to sentence him to receive 150 lashes with a cat-o'-nine-tails, to be imprisoned for a year, and to be kept at the hardest possible labour during that time. The trial had created the greatest interest at Sierra Leone, because the punishment was regarded as excessive, and as being altogether inconsistent with the law. Mr. Huggins was also accused of having been guilty of many offences of the same sort, and the action brought against him might be said to be the action of the whole community of the colony, because it was impossible for Thomas to bear the expense of such a proceeding. The decision arrived at was one which was not calculated to allay their anxiety, for it was to the effect, without any opinion being pronounced as to whether the punishment inflicted on Thomas was 1215 legal or not, that Mr. Huggins was not responsible for any act which he might do in his judicial capacity. The only court of appeal from that decision was the Privy Council, to whom an appeal would involve a very great expense, or the Colonial Office, failing to obtain redress from which it only remained for the people of Sierra Leone to appeal to that House. A number of petitions had been sent to the Colonial Office, complaining of the sentences that have been pronounced by Mr. Justice Huggins; but, notwithstanding the complaints made, Mr. Huggins was, in 1868, promoted from the office of Assistant Judge to that of Judge. The answer given by Mr. Huggins to the allegations contained in those petitions was that, under an old Act of the reign of George III., he was justified in passing such sentences as that which he had passed in the case of Thomas. It was, however, generally understood in Sierra Leone that that Act had been virtually repealed by what was called a general ordinance of the local Government, passed in May, 1862, by which the laws in force in England were made applicable to that colony. They contended, therefore, that the sentence in the case of Thomas was illegal, as the use of the lash was certainly repugnant to their feelings. Earl Granville, he might add, stated in a despatch of the 26th of February, that there were six sentences pronounced by Mr. Huggins which could not, in his opinion, be in any possible way, explained or justified. Several of the sentences passed by him were, the colonists complained, excessive. In some instances he had sentenced persons convicted on charges of simple larceny to be imprisoned with hard labour and whipped three times, while in other instances sentences of penal servitude had been passed for one, two, three, four, and as many as seven years beyond the period prescribed by the Act of Parliament for the offences of which they had been found guilty. In a great number of cases it was alleged that punishments had been awarded in excess of the power conferred on the Judge. When the case of "Thomas v. Huggins" was tried it was dismissed with costs, although, according to a statement in the African Times, the excess of punishment awarded by the defendant beyond what the law authorized was, in the aggregate of cases decided by him, no 1216 less than twenty-one years of penal servitude, six years of hard labour, and 2,200 lashes with the cat-o'-nine-tails. All that the petitioners asked was a full and fair inquiry in which both sides should be heard; and he hoped that so reasonable a prayer would not be refused by the House or the Colonial Office. The hon. Gentleman concluded by proposing his Motion.

§ MR. MONSELL

said, his hon. Friend the Member for Dudley could hardly complain that the attention of the Colonial Office had not been directed to this subject, for three or four petitions in reference to it had been presented to the Department, and they had felt it their duty to give their consideration to each of those petitions. One of these was presented when the Duke of Buckingham was Secretary of State for the Colonies; it was referred to the then Governor of the colony, who, in reporting on it, stated that he had a very high opinion of Mr. Huggins, and that he acquitted that gentleman of all fault in the course he had pursued. After that petition had been so decided upon, the Duke of Buckingham promoted Mr. Huggins to the position he at present occupied. Hon. Gentlemen would, doubt- 1217 less, agree with him that it would not be a desirable thing for the House to require the Colonial Office to constitute itself a court of appeal in judicial matters. Nothing, indeed, could be more calculated to impede the course of justice. The course laid down by the colonial regulations was as follows:—In every colony where a complaint like the present was made against an official a petition might be presented to the Governor, who was bound, after referring it to his council, to consider and decide upon it. If the Governor was of opinion that the Judge was in fault, he could suspend him, and refer the case to the Secretary of State. That course was not pursued, however, in the present case, and his hon. Friend might shorten matters very much if he would recommend the persons whose cause he was pleading to adopt that course. As to the law laid down by the Judge, that was a question sub judice. As his hon. Friend stated, it had been brought before the Chief Justice of Sierra Leone, and he understood it was now before the Privy Council in this country on appeal. [Mr. H. B. SHERIDAN said, there had been no appeal.] He understood that an appeal was contemplated, and, at all events, an appeal was open to the parties interested. In regard to the punishments referred to by his hon. Friend, the simple question was whether the Act 22 & 23 Vict. c. 57, was in force in the colony or not. If it was not in force there, the sentences were in accordance with law; if, on the contrary, it was in force there, the sentences were not in accordance with law. This was a point which neither the House of Commons nor the Colonial Office was the proper tribunal to decide. When Sir Arthur E. Kennedy arrived in England—and he was expected very soon—the complaint should be submitted to him; and he should be glad to lay upon the table the petitions, the replies of Mr. Huggins, and the remarks of Colonel Blackall and the Governor, if the hon. Gentleman would move for their production. All he could promise the hon. Gentleman was that the whole question should be submitted to Sir Arthur E. Kennedy.