HC Deb 21 May 1817 vol 36 cc813-8
Sir James Mackintosh

rose to move for the production of copies of all communications between the Home Department, and a person of the name of Poole, regarding the conduct of the latter in his informations against three individuals, named Parkinson, Fletcher, and Deacon, before a magistrate of Staffordshire. This individual had been very active in his informations. He had no personal knowledge of him, and had no motive but that of public duty, in bringing forward the facts which he felt himself called upon to state. He had received his information from persons on whose veracity he could rely; who, like himself, had no personal interests to serve, and who, although it was possible for them to be deceived themselves, would never attempt to deceive others. It appeared from their statement, that this Poole had been very active about the beginning of April, in procuring informations against Parkinson and the two other persons; and that his zeal had carried him beyond the bounds of law or prudence. When his conduct had excited public notice, when the legality of his proceedings became generally questioned, and he found that he had exposed himself to untoward consequences by his indiscreet zeal, he thought of apian of saving himself from the penalties of his irregularities, by sheltering himself under the protection of the home department. Either he himself, or some other person acting for him, had procured a letter from an hon. person connected with the office of the secretary of state, or from some person affecting to be acting under the authority of the home-office, which he considered as a security for his past conduct, and exhibited as an assurance of protection against the consequences of the irregularities of which he had been guilty. This letter had been seen by a magistrate of the county of Stafford, whom he would not now name, but whose name, if it were mentioned, would suggest as honourable a character as existed in the country. He would not state the expressions the letter contained, nor would he tell by what persons or on whose authority it was written. The grounds of his present motion might be divided into two parts; the fact of showing the letter, and the irregularity of the proceeding. No doubt could exist that this person had shown a letter from the home-office, which he considered as a protection against the consequences of his indiscreet zeal, and that by this means he spread a belief in the district to which he belonged, that government, instead of superintending: the due execution of the laws, had encouraged their violation and extended protection to their violator. No doubt could be entertained, therefore, of the existence of the letter, and the mischievous consequences it had produced. Whatever the letter was, whether direct or indirect, whether it depended on verbal communication, or written authority, from the secretary of state, or any person who could be considered as his agent, it had produced evil consequences, and required ample explanation. This person had certainly spread a report, supported by a written document, that he was favoured by government in breaking the law: that the secretary of state had entered into a confederacy with, him to oppress the subject; and had protected him from the legal consequences of his irregularities. It was the duty op the House at all times to watch with the utmost jealousy over proceedings against the subject, in which the government might be considered as a party; but more especially so at the present moment. If parliament created great powers, and intrusted them into the hands of the administration, they should exert the greatest vigilance over their execution. He believed that the Circular Letter of the noble secretary of state, which would soon be brought under the consideration of the House, had been issued with the best intentions; but it could not be denied that it had produced the most serious evils. The mischief of the power lately created, or assumed, did not consist so much in the solitary acts of oppression to which they might lead, as in the general excitement which they gave to bad passions, the injury they did to public morals, and the universal suspicion that they diffused. They gave a vent to the exasperated feelings of the favoured, and therefore the triumphant party; they taught the people to believe that an action changed its character as it changed its side; and that immoralities became meritorious by being enlisted on a right side, and performed in a right cause. Not only were the common people liable to this error, but men of education, and even magistrates. He would not now enter into the circular, but he would say that whether it contained legal doctrine or not, it had given powers which were before unknown, or not acted upon; and had goaded on to the exercise of rigour those who would otherwise have been beneficially inactive. He hoped the circumstances connected with the subject of his motion would be explained, as a satisfactory explanation would give him great pleasure. He concluded with moving, "That there be laid before this House, Copies of all Communications between his majesty's principal secretary of state for the Home Department, or either of the two under secretaries for that department, or any person acting under or employed by him or them, and one John Elliston Poole, touching the conduct of the said Poole in informations against three persons named Parkinson, Fletcher, and Deacon, who are charged with certain offences before Edward Powis, clerk, a justice of peace of the county of Stafford, on or about the 5th day of April last."

Mr. Addington

observed, that having been, through indisposition, absent from his office when these communications were said to have been made, he find felt it his duty, after the hon. and learned gentleman's notice of motion, to inquire into the circumstance; the result of this inquiry he was now ready to state to the House. Two or three letters had certainly passed between his hon. colleague, Mr Beckett, and the individual to whom the motion referred. Early in April last, a letter had been addressed to the under secretary of state, by Poole, who was a surveyor under the hawkers and pedlars act. To this letter (which was perhaps a mere ebullition of well-meant zeal), an answer was returned, framed according to a certain established form, and, in tact, amounting to little more than an acknowledgment of the letter; two more were afterwards addressed by Poole, and acknowledged in the same manner, and two additional ones (making five in all), to which no answers were returned. He could assure the hon. and learned gentleman, that there was no ground whatever for imputing to the secretary of state, any desire to protect any individual from the responsibility which the law imposed upon him for his acts, and that, in fact, no letter or communication in any manner, bearing the interpretation mentioned by the hon. and learned gentleman, had been sent from the office of the Home Department to the individual in question; and to show how adverse his noble relative (lord Sidmouth) was, to any interference, uncalled for by the nature of his indispensable duty, he had to state, that earl Talbot, the lord lieutenant of the county of Stafford, brought a letter which he had received from the rev. Mr. Powis, the magistrate, against whom the action was said to be pending, for the affair connected with the hon. and learned gentleman's motion. This letter contained three or four questions, to which answers were expected from the secretary of state; but the application not being made in direct official form to the office, no answer was returned. The application, however, was afterwards renewed in a direct manner, and the answer returned was, that the secretary of state did not consider it his province to put constructions on acts of parliament—or on the nature and character of any publications sent to him by the magistrates, or on their libellous or seditious tendency—that it was for the magistrates to act according to their own discretion and best judgment, aided by whatever professional advice they should think proper to resort to on such occasions. He had already said, that the three letters from Mr. Beckett, contained nothing like what the hon. and learned gentleman suspected; and so far as the credit of the Home Department was concerned, be should not have the least objection to have those letters read at Charing-cross. It did not follow, however, that they ought to be produced. There were two grounds, which would induce him to object to their production; the first was, that a prosecution was carrying on against the rev. Mr. Powis, in the King's-bench, arising (in part at least) out of this transaction, and that, pendente lite, it would be improper to publish these letters. The second ground was, that it was not a matter of course to grant papers on their being merely called for. Motions were often made for papers (this was, he admitted, not of that description) out of mere curiosity, and these ought not to be granted. But where papers were moved for, with the view of establishing a charge against an individual connected or unconnected with the government, it was incumbent on the person moving for them to establish a strong prima facie case of misconduct against the individual whom he means to charge. He did not think such a case had been made out on the present occasion, and he would therefore resist the motion.

Sir S. Romilly

could see no ground for refusing the correspondence. The prosecution pending in the court of King's-bench was against Mr. Powis, the magistrate, alone. It was true, that the right hon. gentleman had, with extraordinary candour, apprized the House of the intercourse now subsisting between that gentleman and the executive government; but all that appeared upon the present statement of facts, was, that an individual, who had by some means rendered himself unpleasant to government, had been illegally convicted under the hawkers and pedlars act; the magistrate who recorded that conviction stating, that he cared not for the law, as he was satisfied that he should be indemnified by government. In this state of the case he could not advise his hon. and learned friend to withdraw his motion.

Sir J. Mackintosh

would have willingly withdrawn his motion, if what he had represented as facts had appeared to be no more than supposition. He had, however, reason to believe that too much authenticity belonged to the letter of Poole; by which it appeared, that he had obtained security against the consequences of any irregularity he might commit. With regard to the objection, that the motion was an interference with the proceedings now in progress against Mr. Powis, it would undoubtedly have some weight, if he had called for any other than those parts of the correspondence which related to the informer himself. He could not consent to withdraw the motion, until he should hear something calculated to do away the impression which the letter in question must have created, that the king's government was disposed to sanction every effort of loyalty and zeal, however illegal or irregular.

Sir W. Burroughs

intimated, that his vote must depend upon the answer he received to the question, whether any such letter had ever been sent as that described by Mr. Poole?

Mr. Bathurst

said, that such a question in this stage of the discussion was entirely out of order; but he only rose to observe, that the case of the magistrate was necessarily connected with that of the informer.

The House then divided:—For the motion, 13: Against it, 47.