HC Deb 29 June 1835 vol 29 cc23-30
Mr. Rigby Wason

rose to bring forward the Motion of which he had given notice relative to the magistrates of Norwich, Messrs. Bgnold and Booth. He moved that those gentlemen be committed to Newgate for a breach of the privileges of the House—that the Speaker issue his warrant to that effect. He should commence by calling their attention to the Report of the Committee on the Ipswich election, in which the conduct of those gentlemen was mentioned. It was in these terms—"That the conduct of the magistrates, Samuel Bignold and E. T. Booth, Esqrs., before whom the said John Pilgrim was charged, appears to this Committee to be a breach of the privileges of this House." That Report would be a sufficient ground for his Motion, but he would strengthen it by quoting some of the evidence given before the Committee. The hon. Member read the following extracts. The first extract was from the evidence of Mr. O'Malley, and related to what occurred at Norwich when Pilgrim was in the custody of the constable:— You first heard of the Chairman's warrant at five o'clock on the Thursday evening?—I did. Are you a professional man?—I am not. Is Mr. Booth?—He is not. Who is the adviser of the magistrates?—Mr. Day, the sword-bearer: he acts as justice's clerk. Is he a professional man?—He is an attorney. Did you not inquire of Mr. Day what ought to be done on a Chairman's warrant coming?—I had not heard of the Chairman's warrant. You heard of it at five o'clock on Thursday evening?—Allow me to give an answer; on the Thursday morning I met Mr. Keith at the sword-bearer's office, and he made his deposition. I am not asking about that; I am asking about your having heard at five o'clock that there was a Chairman's warrant out; what did you do in that extraordinary state of affairs: what advice did you take?—I took no advice. No advice at all?—No. Was Mr. Day present? I sent for him. Did you find him?—Yes. Although you found him you did not take any advice on what was to be done?—No; I acted on my own discretion as to what I thought was the proper course. The hon. Member went on to prove, from various parts of the evidence, that the delay which took place in the disposal of the charge of felony which was preferred against Mr. Pilgrm, prevented his appearing before the Committee at a proper time in obedience to the summons of the Chairman. He should next advert to the change in the custody of Pilgrim which had taken place under the authority of the magistrates. The evidence on this ground of complaint against the magistrates was as follows:— Did you go to the office?—I did. When you got to the office, what did you find?—He was in custody. Did you see him in custody?—Yes. Whose custody?—In the custody of a man of the name of Barnes. Is he an officer?—He is the gaoler. And you saw him in the custody of Barnes?—Yes. Where did you see him in Barnes's custody?—At Mr. Jay's office. What became of him afterwards?—Some discussion took place there; and afterwards he went to the Norwich Union Fire-office, to Mr. Bignold. Is he a Magistrate?—I believe he is; the warrant was signed by him. Did you go there?—I did. And saw him there?—Yes. Was Mr. Bignold the Magistrate there?—I do not know the person; but by the recognition of the warrant, I presumed he was. Was that the person who you were informed was the Magistrate?—Yes; Mr. Bignold and Mr. Booth. Were you present before the Magistrates when Pilgrim was also in custody?—I was. Did you hear any charge made against him before the Magistrates?—I was much alarmed about his being taken there, as I thought that I was the cause of it, as serving that summons. I went to Mr. Adam Taylor, the solicitor, at Norwich, to come down; he desired a copy of the warrant to be taken—a copy of the information on which it was taken. Have you got that copy?—I have. What was the information?—That he had defrauded Messrs. Sewell and Blake, in the year 1831 of 6l. Was that the charge?—He received the sum of 21l., and out of which he embezzled 6l.; Mr. Jay said it was not so. What year;—1831: August, 1831; What was it you said Mr. Jay, the solicitor, said?—The embezzlement was not stated in the warrant; the information was read over to Mr. Bignold; Mr. Jay said that could be easily explained away, and offered; and he did explain it to Mr. Taylor. Who was it laid the information?—Blake, Sewell, and Keith?—I think it was Mr. Keith. Have you got the copy?—look at it; refresh your memory? (The witness referred to it.)—Thomas Moor Keith. Do you know what took place before the Magistrates after Mr. Jay made the statement which you have told the Committee?—I told the Magistrates under what circumstances Pilgrim stood, having the Speaker's warrant. You told the Magistrates that?—Yes. That you had served him with the Speaker's warrant?—Yes. Was any observation made upon that?—No, not to that; I continued speaking; I observed to him that the warrant had been put in force immediately, as he was on the point of starting, and I thought it looked very much like concert. Told whom? Mr. Bignold. What else took place before them?—Why, they afterwards, in another room, asked me to give an explanation, because it appeared Mr. Bignold had assumed to himself that the concert I had mentioned referred to him. You were called into another room before them?—Yes, and I did not intend that. Do you know what was ultimately determined by the Magistrate?—It was ultimately determined that he should be detained until the following day. They were going to hear the charge, I told them how important it was to get off that night, and they suggested afterwards they should employ counsel, and I was advised by Mr. Taylor to employ Mr. Palmer, and I said I would go for him, and I went, and whilst I was gone they were determined not to go on till one o'clock to day. How did you learn that?—From what fell from the officer, I think it was, and confirmed by the warrant. Have you got a copy of the warrant of the commitment?—Yes. Where did you get that?—Mr. Taylor insisted upon it. Where did you get the warrant of commitment?—From the Magistrate's officer. This is it—no, the short one; that is the information signed by Mr. Bignold and Mr. Booth?—Yes. I want to know whether it is made upon the oath of Mr. Keith?—Yes. Did you see Pilgrim after this?—Yes. Have you got a copy of the Speaker's warrant or summons?—Yes. Just produce that, will you?—(The witness produced it.) Was this a copy that you made that was served.—Yes. Did you make it yourself?—I did not; I read it over with the original. Is it a copy?—It is. Is that the warrant which you allude to under the name of the Speaker's warrant?—I was told by Mr. Ashurst's clerk it was so. The hon. Member next called the attention of the House to the following portion of the evidence of Mr. Bignold himself:—When did you first hear there was a Chairman's warrant out against this gentleman?—Immediately that the prisoner was brought before us, within ten minutes. That was on the Thursday morning?—No, on the Thursday evening at five o'clock. Had you not heard a Chairman's warrant was out against that witness before five o'clock on Thursday evening?—I had not. When was the first application made to you about apprehending this man?—On the Wednesday night about ten o'clock. Were you applied to to sign a warrant?—I was applied to by Mr. Keith and Mr. Joseph John Blake, to take their charge and grant a warrant. Did you refuse to take their charge and grant a warrant that night?—I think I wished them to call on the Mayor, and the reply was, that they had been to the Mayor, that he was indisposed, and wished me to take the case; and I said, as it was so late, and I did not do justice business at my own house, I would meet them on the following morning at ten o'clock at the Town-hall. You thought it too late to sign a warrant in a case of felony, when you were told the felon was in the town?—We do not sign a warrant without the usual form; the case is preferred before the sword-bearer, and afterwards the deposition is made, the warrant is then issued; I do not act as justice clerk myself. Was there no deposition made or offered to be made, that night?—Yes, offered to be made, there was, but at a very late hour. You refused to sign a warrant that night, or declined it—I deferred them till the following morning. The hon. Member concluded by stating that he did not think that any one who had read the evidence could deny that, the conduct of the Magistrates was strongly reprehensible, and he should conclude, therefore by moving "That Samuel Bignold and E. T. Booth, Esqrs., be taken into the custody of the Sergeant-at-Arms attending this House, and that Mr. Speaker do issue his warrants accordingly.

Mr. Williams Wynn

thought that there was no precedent for the course proposed to be pursued by the hon. Member for Ipswich. It had always been the practice for any hon. Member, preferring a charge of breach of privilege against any individual, to state the grounds on which the accusation was founded—for having absconded, or been guilty of bribery, or some offence of that description; but simply to move that he be taken into custody for having violated the privileges of the House, and that without any Resolution to that effect being affirmed by the House, was a course of proceeding so unusual, that he hoped the hon. Member would see the propriety of abandoning his present Motion.

Mr. Patrick M. Stewart

objected to the specific Motion of the hon. Member for Ipswich, because it appeared to him that the decision of the Committee did not warrant it. At the same time he felt it his duty to move an Amendment to the Motion of the hon. Member, which he believed would meet the wishes of all parties. He was persuaded that the impression made on the Committee was precisely that stated in the Report, and he was equally convinced that no one who heard the evidence with an impartial mind could come to a different conclusion. Therefore without going into any details which were already before the House, and which would speak for themselves, he was anxious that some further information should be afforded to the House on the conduct of the magistrates on this occasion. This might, he conceived, be effected without touching upon, or extending too far, any of their privileges by the Motion which he would submit, and which was, that Messrs. Bignold and Booth be ordered to attend at the Bar on Friday next.

Mr. Rigby Wason

said, that he should adopt the Motion of the hon. Member, and withdraw his own.

Viscount Stormont

said, that he knew it to be the most anxious wish of these Gentlemen to appear at the Bar of the House, and give every full and satisfactory explanation of their conduct, but before they came up it was necessary that he should say a few words to vindicate them from the suspicion which the Report of the Committee had cast upon them. He would state what occurred on Pilgrim being taken into custody at Norwich. The magistrates had sent for the Recorder and Town Clerk of Norwich, their legal advisers, with a view to consulting them, but before the arrival of those officers, Pilgrim was withdrawn from their custody, and sent to the House of Correction for safe custody. Mr. Bignold was a most respectable gentleman, of large property, and was not only a magistrate of Norwich, but also of the county of Norfolk. Mr. Booth was also a gentleman of great respectability: and both were quite incapable of joining in any conspiracy, as was insinuated, to defeat the ends of justice, or to violate any of the privileges of that House.

Mr. Sheil

said, that when he inquired, a few nights ago, whether it was the intention of the noble Lord, the Secretary of State for the Home Department, that Mr. Bignold should be continued in the Commission of the Peace, the Attorney-General replied that the Government had no control over him, as he was merely a Magistrate, appointed by the Corporation of Norwich, but it now appeared that he was a Magistrate for the county of Norfolk also. If, therefore, no other Member of the House took the matter up, he should, on a future day, move an Address to the Crown to have Mr. Bignold removed from the Commission of the Peace.

Mr. Scarlett

said, that so great was Mr. Bignold's anxiety to have an immediate investigation into his conduct, that, when he heard that his name was mixed up with the inquiry before the Ipswich Committee, he came to town and offered himself for examination before that Committee. He hoped this case would not be looked at in a partial light, because these Gentlemen might have supported one party rather than another at an election, but that it would be judged of on its real merits. The Magistrates did not feel that they were bound to liberate from their custody and give into the hands of another person a prisoner who was charged with a felony, upon the authority of a summons from the Chairman of an Election Committee. They would certainly not be bound to obey, in this respect, a subpœna from any of the superior Courts of Law. Nor would even the Speaker's warrant justify them in parting with their prisoner. If the law were otherwise, it ought to be declared, but he did not think it ever would; and until it was, the Magistrates had at least good grounds for doubting the authority of the Speaker's warrant to supersede their own. To come to a fair and dispassionate judgment on this question, the whole case must be heard, and when that should take place, he had no doubt of the entire exculpation of the Magistrates.

Lord John Russell

said, that it was not his intention to go into the merits of this case at present; but he would suggest that, as the examination was likely to last several hours, it would be better to have the attendance of those gentlemen at the Bar on Saturday morning.

Mr. Chapman

thought it would be better to refer the case to a Committee, and he should wish to include Messrs. Sewell and Blake in the investigation.

Mr. Charles Buller

said, that he should also propose that Mr. Keith should attend. It was proper that he should have an opportunity of explaining at the Bar some very suspicious parts of his evidence. He moved that Mr. Keith be included in the order to attend at the Bar.

Mr. Williams Wynn

admitted that he had not looked into the evidence as it respected Keith, and he thought it would be more regular if the hon. Member gave notice of his Motion to include Mr. Keith in the order.

Mr. Blackstone

said, that after the unjust aspersions that had been cast upon Mr. Keith, he should, in justice to him, read parts of the evidence which he had given before the Committee. Here the hon. Member referred to the evidence to show that Mr. Keith had satisfactorily answered all the questions put to him, and had acquitted himself of all blame.

Sir John Wrottesley

said, that by com- paring the dates of the transactions in which Mr. Keith was concerned, it would be found that he was by no means blameless. It appeared that Mr. Keith went to Calais to tell Pilgrim that his desk had been broken open, and papers found which would lead to a prosecution against him for embezzlement if he returned to Norwich, but that while he remained out of England he was safe. This was clearly done to keep Pilgrim away, and to prevent his giving evidence. If tins were true, Keith was clearly a party to the conspiracy.

Mr. Williams Wynn

said, that if it should turn out that this charge of felony was trumped up against Pilgrim, those who were concerned in such a proceeding were, both in a civil and criminal sense, responsible; but it would be a very inconvenient course for that House to go into an inquiry as to whether the charge was a bona fide one, at a time that Pilgrim was about to be placed on his trial.

Mr. Charles Buller

said, that he had not as yet gone into the case, which he was confident he should be able to establish against Keith, nor should he do so now, but should give notice to that effect for to-morrow, when he thought it would be found that the case against Mr. Keith was not so slight as some hon. Members seemed to imagine.

Mr. Wodehouse

, on the part of Messrs. Sewell, Blake, and Keith, was prepared to state their perfect readiness to meet any investigation into their conduct. He could not, therefore, acquiesce in the premature judgment given by the hon. Baronet opposite (Sir J. Wrottesley) but would wait for the day of inquiry, when it would be seen who was right and who was wrong.

Mr. Hughes Hughes

was very unwilling to prolong this discussion, but having been a member of the Committee, (and he might appeal to his hon. Friend, the Chairman of it, whether he did not pay every possible attention to the whole of the evidence) a love of justice impelled him to make one remark. He witnessed the demeanour and conduct, as well as heard the evidence, of Mr. Bignold the Magistrate, and of Messrs. Blake and Keith, the solicitors, before the Committee, and had a strong impression that the proposed examination of those gentlemen by the House, would terminate in their complete acquittal of every charge of conspiracy, collusion, or misconduct of any kind, with reference to this case. Having this persuasion, he had felt it to be his duty to state it, and to beg hon. Members to suspend their judgment upon evidence admitted to be both incomplete and ex-parte.

Sir Robert Peel

said, that there could be no doubt that it was the wish of the House to have some further investigation, and he thought it would therefore be better for the hon. Member to make his Motion at once, rather than give notice for to-morrow, unless the House should require it.

Mr. Charles Buller

said, that he should move at once, that Thomas Moore Keith be ordered to attend on Friday at the Bar.

It was finally ordered that Samuel Bignold, Esq., E. Temple Booth, Esq., Mr. Pilgrim, Mr. Money, the cashier of Messrs. Blake and Sewell, Mr. Barnes, a gaoler, and Mr. Keith, do attend at the Bar of the House on Saturday.