MR. THOMAS. (Hansard, 22 August 1839)

§ Mr. Wakley
presented a petition from Henry Cornelius Thomas, surgeon, of Camberwell, complaining of the illegal imprisonment of his brother, a surgeon, of the same place. As the petition referred to a case of personal grievance, and one which called for immediate redress, he trusted the House would indulge him with permission to relate the particulars. The brother of the petitioner, named Frederick Nicholas Somers Thomas, had been convicted it appeared, for stealing furniture from a house in Camberwell-grove. The case turned on a question entirely of identity, and the conviction of Mr. Thomas, depended on very loose and unsatisfactory testimony. None of the goods were traced to the possession of either of the prisoners. On the 13th of December, a Mr. Cook, another surgeon, stated that he had seen a report of a case in the newspapers, which he knew to be totally erroneous, for he was the party that took away the goods, and he was totally unacquainted with Mr. Thomas, whom he had never seen, and who knew nothing of the matter at all. Mr. Cook, and two persons in his employ, Skinner and Watts, removed the goods in September. They went to the house in the open day, and there was no concealment, and no attempt at concealment. Mr. Cook, feeling that he was entitled to take the goods that were assigned to him by his debtor, related these facts to the Home-office, and the Chairman of the Sessions; but, strange as it might appear, after Mr. Cook had sent to the Home-office a state 487 ment to the effect that the goods were taken by him and not by Thomas, and that Thomas was altogether innocent of any offence, no redress was afforded. Mr. Thomas was sent to Chelmsford gaol in December last, and this prosecution had had such an effect upon his mind, that he had since been removed from that place, and was now in the felons' wing of Bethlem Hospital. Mr. Cook, with the most praiseworthy benevolence, had made every exertion in the power of man to endeavour to obtain the liberation of his innocent fellow-creature; but every effort had been unavailing. He had often reason to complain of the noble Lord, the Secretary for the Home Department, in reference to his politics; but he must say, that so far as the administration of justice was concerned, no minister ever deserved a higher character. He believed that noble Lord had always endeavoured to ascertain the truth of the facts of every case brought under his notice; and in defiance of every slander and every threat, whenever he discovered the truth, he acted manfully and boldly. That was the character which the noble Lord was entitled to as minister of justice, and as Secretary of State for the Home Department, and he was utterly at a loss to know, seeing the way in which the noble Lord always had acted, to comprehend how it was, that the noble Lord's mind continued blind with reference to the facts of this case. He was afraid the noble Lord had been influenced by inferior persons, who, when they had fallen into an error, instead of looking at the merits of the case, and endeavouring to rectify that error, only sought to prove that it was no error, and that though all other persons might be wrong, they themselves must be right. All he wished was a fair, open, and candid investigation. He wished Mr. Thomas and his accuser, to be brought face to face. At the time the trial took place, Mr. Thomas knew nothing whatever of Mr. Cook. He was called on to prove a negative. A party swore that he was seen in the street, and Mr. Thomas could not prove that he was not. What had occurred since? Why, the sweep who swore on the trial that he had been hired by Mr. Thomas to get down the chimney, and open the door, had confessed with tears in his eyes, that he had been bribed, and that he was threatened, unless he gave the evidence he did, that he should be prosecuted for some offence he had committed. He had confessed that he swore 488 falsely. Mr. Thomas was incarcerated in a dungeon, he had become insane, and was now lodged in the felons' cell of one of the lunatic asylums of the metropolis. He pledged himself to prove the entire innocence of Mr. Thomas, and if he did not do so, he would never bring a similar case of grievance before the House again. Many of the documents and materials on which the prisoner's innocence rested, were at the Home-office, the petitioner could not get the papers back again, and was not allowed to take copies of them. He was anxious, having stated the case, to found a motion on it for an address to the Crown, praying her Majesty to direct a full and impartial investigation of the allegations contained in the petition, but as the noble Lord was not there, and as twenty-four hours' deliberation might be of service to the unfortunate man, he would postpone the motion. He trusted in the mean time, that the noble Lord would make some intimation to him that an inquiry would take place, and thereby render the motion unnecessary. Let the noble Lord refer the matter to some respectable barrister, who had given no opinion on the case, and there was some hope that that unfortunate individual, who had been now eight months incarcerated, would ultimately obtain his liberty.

§ Mr. Hawes
said, there were some parts of the hon. Member's statement which required a little elucidation; and as he had taken some interest in the case, he would take the liberty of addressing a few observations to the House. He was bound to state his entire conviction of the complete innocence of Mr. Thomas. He made that statement, not upon his own conviction, but as the result of the professional investigation of two barristers of eminence, who had gratuitously given their services in the case. He would state further, that he had received from the noble Lord every possible attention; he had submitted every document to him, and yet, nevertheless, the noble Lord had somehow come to the conclusion, that he should not be justified in ordering the prisoner to be discharged. He could only account for that decision of the noble Lord by the circumstance, that from the multiplicity of his high and important duties, he was obliged to depend on the information of others; and he believed that proper investigation had not been made into this case by the authorities in the Home Department, because they had alleged that Mr. Cook was a person of bad character 489 supposing him to be another person of the same name.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer
could assure the hon. Gentleman who had presented the petition, that the only cause of the absence of the noble Lord was indisposition. He must admit that the hon. Gentleman had done full justice to the principles which had actuated his noble Friend. No doubt the notice that had been taken of the case in the House would have the attention of the Secretary of State, but whether that would produce a different result, he could not say. Whatever that result might be, he trusted the House would not undertake to review lightly the prerogative of the Crown in cases of the present nature. In conclusion, he begged to inform the hon. Member for Finsbury, that he would take core that what had occurred should be made known to his noble Friend.