HC Deb 26 July 1842 vol 65 cc637-40
Lord Clements

hoped that he should meet with the indulgence of the House in bringing before it a matter of a personal nature, and one which not only touched his character, but also that of the learned Chief Remembrancer of Ireland. In answer to statements that he had made on the 30th of June, relative to abuses which had taken place in the county of Donegal in the administration of the grand jury laws, the learned Recorder of Dublin had taken upon himself to contradict statements he had made relative to a forgery he had alleged to have been committed, and the learned Recorder stated that he did so upon the authority of the Chief Remembrancer, Mr. Blake. He, therefore, thought it his duty to write to that learned gentleman to know if this was correct, and he would by the permission of the House read these letters. The first was from him to Mr. Blake:ߞ

(Copy.)

" London, July, 13, 1842.

" Dear Mr. Blake—I hope that you will excuse me for again troubling you. But Mr. Shaw stated in the House of Commons words to the following effect Mr. Shaw wished only to say in corroboration of what had fallen from the hon. Member for Donegal, and in justice to the gentlemen who were attacked, that Mr. Blake had expressed to him the greatest astonishment that the noble Lord should have designated the transaction he had so long dwelt upon as a forgery; there was au irregularity in the act of the public officer, but it was neither a fraud nor a moral offence; under these circumstances, he saw not justification for the noble Lord in the strong terms that he used.' You will oblige me very much by informing me if this be true, or if you said anything to Mr. Shaw which could authorise his making the above statement.

"Believe me your's very faithfully,

" CLEVENTS.

" The Right Hon. Anthony Blake, &c. &c. &c."

To this Mr. Blake sent the following reply—

(Copy.)

Dublin Castle, July 16, 1842.

" My dear LordߞI have received your note of the 13th instant. There appears to be a misunderstanding as to the conversation which I had with Mr. Shaw. It took place, I think, casually after dinner at the Queen's Inn, where he and I had been dining as benchers. He mentioned your having spoken of the secretary of the grand jury of Donegal as having been convicted by or before me of forgery, and it was at that that I expressed in surprise. I stated that I had no jurisdiction over the secretary of the grand jury; that I could only examine him with reference to the county treasurers account; that I did examine him with reference to it, and that he admitted before me having put a man's name to a receipt, having drawn the amount without his authority, and having applied it for some time to his own purposes, but that he afterwards paid it to the person entitled to it; that I thought these circumstances ought to be brought wider the notice of those to whom he was amenable for his conduct, which he was not to me; that I had called their attention to it; that as I had no right to try him for any crime, and did not, it would have been very improper in me, particularly when speaking judicially, to declare him guilty of forgery, or fraud, or any moral offence, and that I accordingly abstained from doing so. This, I am certain, is the substance of what I stated. It corresponds with the original minute which I made in the matter, a copy of which has been printed by order of the House of Commons, and from which the following is an extract Mr. Spence admitted that the mark of Owen M'Daid was put to the receipt, not by M'Daid, but by him. He admitted that M'Daid could read and write, and had given him no authority to sign his name, or put his mark to the receipt. He stated that the money was payable, not to M'Daid, but to John Dogherty, who had done the work for which the presentment had been made That after Spring Assizes, 1840, he (Spence) delivered the receipt to the treasurer, and received a draft from him for the amount drawn in favour of M'Daid, or order; that he endorsed the draft in M'Daid's name, and drew the amount from the county bank; that he applied the money to his own purposes; and that he paid the amount, after Summer Assizes, to John Dogherty, who had done the work. I examined M'Daid, who admitted that he authorized Dogherty to receive the money. I also examined Dogherty, who admitted that he had received the money after Summer Assizes from Mr. Spence. Mr. Spence stated that the treasurer was not cognizant of the circumstances. As the money payable to M'Daid has, with his privity and consent, been paid to Dogherty, I have suffered the credit which I gave the treasurer for it to stand; but I deem it necessary that the attention both of the court and the grand jury should be called to the subject at the ensuing assizes.' With this minute fresh in my recollection, I could not have intended to exculpate Mr. Spense. I meant only to exculpate myself. I do not think any person, in the exercise of judicial functions, should ever declare any person guilty of a crime, unless bound to do so upon that person's being tried for crime before him. The notion that Mr. Spence had been convicted of forgery by, or before me, might imply that I had pronounced him so. It was against this supposition I was anxious to protest, without meaning at all to express surprise at your designating the act as forgery, or to pronounce on Mr. Spence's conduct. It was the opinion of the late and present law officers of the Crown, and it was mine, as you are already aware, that after M'Daid had adopted the acts of Spence, a prosecution for forgery, with intent to defraud, could not be maintained, but it was competent to the judge and the grand jury, and to them only, to go into the case with a view to Mr. Spence's continuance or dismissal from office or being mulct of his salary, and to them I left it, as it was my duty to do.

(Signed) " A. R. BLAKE."

He need only add that it will be in the recollection of the House, that the time of his making use of the word " convicted " was not in his speech on the 30th of June, but at the time of his putting a question to the noble Lord the Secretary for Ireland, to know if it was the intention of the Government to prosecute Mr. Spence in con. sequence of what had taken place before Mr. Blake. The noble Lord understood his meaning, and answered his question to his satisfaction. He admitted that the word "convicted " might imply more than he intended should be understood; but it was made use of only in the question to the noble Lord, and not in his speech on the 30th of June. Therefore he could not admit that the learned Recorder of Dublin was in any way justified in making the statements he did, or deny that a forgery had been committed, when there was not a shadow of a doubt that such had been the case.