HC Deb 02 May 1881 vol 260 cc1546-9
MR. MELLOR

asked Mr. Attorney General, Whether his attention has been called to an article in the "Boston Independent" newspaper of the 9th April, which has been sent to various Members of this House, and circulated in Lincolnshire, containing the following passages:— Boston is comparatively pure before the wholesale corruption of the other offending constituencies, and nothing could well be milder in the shape of bribery (if bribery it can be held) than the part taken by Messrs. Wren and Kit-wood at the last election. They were not systematic bribers; they made no preparations; and, if the accusations against them can be proved, all that they did was inconsiderately on the day of the poll to yield to earnest solicitations to furnish money for the purposes of the election, without asking questions. Other influence has however we feel sure been at work, and the decision of the Attorney General is not altogether due to convenience or accident. If pressure had not been brought to bear upon him, for the purpose of gratifying personal vindictive feelings caused by disappointment and defeat, it is probable we should never have heard of these indictments. There is a growing feeling of indignation in the town at such a gross miscarriage of justice, which day by day will become more general and intense as the time of the trial approaches; whether such expressions, in reference to pending criminal proceedings, have not a tendency to defeat the administration of justice; and, whether he intends to take any proceedings in consequence?

MR. WARTON

I rise to Order. I beg to ask you, Sir, whether it is in accordance with the Rules of the House that counsel about to prosecute in a criminal proceeding should also act in that capacity in this House?

MR. SPEAKER

The hon. and learned Member has put the Question on his own responsibility; but, as at present advised, I do not feel called upon to interfere.

MR. E. STANHOPE

said, before the hon. and learned Gentleman answered the Question, he should like to ask him another with reference to this matter, of which he had given him private Notice. It was, Whether it was not the fact that the prosecutions for bribery at Boston were confined to members of one political Party, although members of the other Party had also been scheduled by the Royal Commission as guilty of bribery; whether he would not take that opportunity of explaining the grounds upon which that course had been adopted, which had never been publicly explained, and by this means to calm the excited state of political feeling in Boston which not unnaturally existed? He should like also to ask him whether he had read the whole of the article complained of, of which the extract now given only gave a misleading account?

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)

I am sure, Sir, that the hon. Member for Mid Lincolnshire (Mr. Stanhope) would not intentionally add the authority arising from his high position in this House to a suggestion for which there is no foundation; but his Question appears to me to be in two particulars couched in somewhat unfortunate language, because he says that the course which I have adopted has never been publicly explained, and that in consequence of it an excited state of political feeling not unnaturally exists in Boston. Now, the hon. Member's Question appears to suggest that, certain persons of both Parties having been scheduled as guilty of corrupt practices, I have selected for prosecution persons of one political Party and allowed those who belong to the other—that is, the Liberal Party—to escape. The duty of prose- cuting persons guilty of corrupt practices is imposed upon me by statute, and I am directed to prosecute all persons guilty of corrupt practices against whom I think there is sufficient evidence to put them on their trial, subject to this—that a certificate of indemnity given to persons who have been examined as witnesses protects them from prosecution. In this case of Boston, the Report of the Commissioners concludes as follows:— We have granted certificates to all persons whose names appear in the Schedules appended to this Report stating that they have been asked questions the answers to which criminated or tended to criminate them, and that they answered all such questions, with the exception of certain persons named in the Report. Therefore, it was beyond my power to prosecute anyone but such excepted persons, and all those I have prosecuted. When the hon. Member suggests that no public explanation of this kind has hitherto been given, I must remind the House that some three weeks or more ago I asked the indulgence of the House to make the very statement I have now made. Again, when the hon. Member suggests that the excited state of feeling in Boston is natural, I must inform the House that it is stated to me that the Report of the Commissioners has been published in newspapers circulating in Boston, and that, therefore, those who are said to be excited must have known of these certificates of protection having been given. In answer to my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Grantham, I have to say that my attention has been called, with much regret, to this article. It suggests that I have permitted those who are acting under the disappointment arising from defeat to influence me, and that except for such influence these prosecutions would not have been instituted. The fact is that, with the exception of my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor General, the Public Prosecutor, and the legal officials of the Treasury, no one has communicated with me on the subject of the prosecution. Of course, such an article is most improper; but as I am so personally attacked, I feel great difficulty in directing that proceedings should be taken against the publishers. I have, however, taken steps to cause the article to be placed before the Solicitor General and the Director of Public Prosecutions, with a request that they should determine whether any proceedings should be taken to prevent so grave an interference with the administration of justice as this article amounts to taking place. As, however, I find that measures have been taken to secure an exceptional publication of the article among that class from which jurymen would be summoned, I shall have to consider whether it will not be necessary, for the purpose of securing an impartial jury, to remove the trial of the informations to a locality upon which such an improper influence as this article has not been brought to bear.