HC Deb 12 June 1845 vol 81 cc393-8
Dr. Bowring

begged to draw the attention of the right hon. Baronet the Secretary of State for the Home Department to the following circumstances, which had reached his knowledge; and as it was a case which involved the liberty of the subject, and which seemed to attach much blame to the functionaries in the Isle of Man, he would, with the leave of the House, and to secure himself against giving any high colouring to the facts he was about to state, read from printed documents the circumstances which had occurred:—On the 9th day of September, 1844, Sarah Coldicott, the wife of Mr. John W. Coldicott, an English stranger, went before James Quirk, esq., high bailiff of Douglas, and made her affidavit, charging her husband with assault and battery, and using threatening language, and stated that she was apprehensive of some serious bodily injury from her husband. The jurat of the affidavit was in these words: "Taken and sworn before me, J. Quirk." The affidavit was referred to J. Heywood, the deemster, who ordered, on the 9th of September— That the said John Waters Coldicott be forthwith apprehended and imprisoned in the gaol of Castle Rushen, there to remain until he do enter into a penal bond unto our Sovereign Lady the Queen in the sum of 40l., with two good and sufficient sureties in the sums of 20l. each; that he, the said John Waters Coldicott, shall and will keep the peace toward the said Sarah Coldicott, and all others Her Majesty's subjects, for the space of six months, and that before his discharge he do pay the costs of his imprisonment in this order. In consequence of this order and affidavit, on the day of their date a constable named Lee apprehended Coldicott, and with the greatest despatch hurried him ten miles from home, and committed him to the gaoler of Castle Rushen, refusing him the opportunity of consulting legal counsel before he was marched off. After Coldicott had been a prisoner more than a month, John Kermode, of Douglas, instituted certain civil proceedings against him to recover a debt of some 14l. In consequence of this his furniture in Douglas was arrested, and some process of detainer of his person in gaol was issued. Coldicott, in his ignorance of the law, and supposing he had now become Kermode's prisoner, petitioned his Excellency the Governor to grant an order for his support. This application was resisted by Kermode's advocate in open court, denying that Coldicott was in custody at Kermode's suit. On this the prisoner applied to the Clerk of the Rolls to learn the result of his application for maintenance, and got the following for answer, under the hand of the Clerk of the Rolls:— J. W. Coldicott v. John Kermode—for maintenance.—Defendant denies that petitioner is imprisoned at his suit. Petitioner was imprisoned at the suit of his wife for a breach of the peace. The prisoner thus learning his true position, viz., that he still remained a prisoner under the order of Deemster Heywood, suspended further efforts for his relief until the 25th of March last past. Previous to this, however, Kermode's arrest of prisoner's household goods in Douglas had been abandoned, and the arrest was laid on prisoner's portmanteau, which he had with him within the four walls of the gaol, and which contained some watches, besides sundry necessary articles for his comfort and subsistence while a prisoner. These being thus taken from him, left him in a state of great destitution. He had been lying in close confinement for six months and a half, and he then presented a petition to the Governor and Council, praying for his immediate discharge. In this memorial the prisoner particularly set forth the irregularity of the proceedings, the illegal steps by which he had been deprived of his liberty—disclosed the fact that he was a free-born subject of Great Britain, and a freeholder in England to a considerable amount—he averred that the facts alleged against him by the complainant, his wife, were palpably and absolutely false, and that he had no doubt this prosecution and imprisonment were resorted to in order to gratify malice, and subserve some ulterior designs. On this petition being presented to the Governor, he, instead of entertaining it, and causing the effects of alleged grievvance to be investigated before himself and council, referred the whole matter to Deemster Heywood, the very party whose order constituted the grievance complained of in the memorial; said reference appearing by order, made on the margin of the petition, in these words—"Referred to Deemster Heywood.—J. Ready." This laconic order had no date or place of execution; however, it was made between the 25th of March and the 3rd of April; for the memorial was presented on the first-named day, and the deemster acted under the executive order on the day last named. On the 3rd of April, 1845, Deemster Heywood again possessed himself of Coldicott's case, and assumed to act therein. What is there peculiar in point of time? Why, on the 9th of September previous, the deemster had required the prisoner to find securities to keep the peace for six months, and six months only. Now, on the 3rd of April, that said six months had expired, and twenty-four days over; during all which time the prisoner had most punctually kept the peace, having nothing to war against but the thick and indurated walls of Castle Rushen; thus the condition and full requirement of the original order of commitment had been fully kept to the letter, and twenty-four days over. An able memorial of the prisoner was sent in to the deemster, in which he denied the facts alleged against him by his wife, and for which he had been imprisoned. Nay, more, he had referred in that memorial to collateral facts, documentary and other evidence, rendering the woman's story incredible, and furnishing other motives in the complainant than the ends of justice, which led to the prosecution. It was undoubtedly the duty of the deemster, if he could sustain the matter at all after the six months had elapsed, to have opened the whole case, and have gone into an examination of the alleged grievances before he could act with the least safety to the ends of justice. But what was the deemster's course under these circumstances, and what did he? Why, without any notice given to the prisoner, or allowing him a hearing, he placed his paper before him, and penned the following order:— In consideration of his Excellency the Lieutenant Governor's reference of this petition to me, and it appearing that the petitioner has been in gaol a considerable time, and unable to procure the bail required by my order, dated the 9th of September, 1844, it is hereby ordered that the said order be set aside, and the petitioner discharged from gaol upon his entering into his own bond, at the Roll's Office, to our Sovereign Lady the Queen in the penal sum of 40l., that he shall and will keep the peace towards his wife, Sarah Coldicott, for the space of three months, and upon his paying the fees incurred under the previous order, dated the 9th of September, 1844. Given this 3rd of April, 1845. J. J. HEYWOOD, Deemster." The prisoner had prayed in his memorial to the Executive, that he forthwith be discharged from his imprisonment. He based that prayer on the fact, that the proceeding had been irregular and void from beginning to end—that, being denied the privilege of answering for himself, but hurried off to gaol without trial, examination, or opportunity to show cause why he should not be imprisoned, the whole proceeding was contrary to law, tyrannical, and oppressive—that the complaint against him was an unqualified falsehood, superinduced by malice and revenge, and ulterior motives, which need not here be repeated—and, finally, that the time had expired for which he was ordered to find sureties of the peace, and twenty-four days over; hence the order of commitment had been exhausted, and its object obtained. For these cogent and overwhelming reasons the English prisoner claimed the rights of a British freeman and a British freeholder in these terms:— Your petitioner, therefore, prays the most serious consideration of your Excellency, and of the hon. Members of your Excellency's council, of this, to him, most important petition; and that your Excellency's decision may be that your petitioner be forthwith discharged from his imprisonment under the said order of his Honour Deemster Heywood, of the 9th day of September, 1844. To this prayer Deemster Heywood replied— It may be all true that you are an English freeholder; it may be true that you have been aggrieved by a false accusation brought against you, in bad faith; and although the six months to which I had adjudged you to keep the peace have long since expired, yet, inasmuch as you have had the temerity to complain against Manx oppression, and to question the infallibility of breast-law, I hereby adjudge you to pay the cost of the former proceedings, and bind yourself in a penal bond of 40l., to extend three months longer, before you can leave these prison walls. The above, in effect, was Deemster Hey-wood's order, in response to a humble prayer for release. On this new order coming to the knowledge of the prisoner, he addressed a memorial to his Excellency the Lieutenant Governor, in a further petition presented to him on the 8th of April last. In this memorial the prisoner goes on to say— Petitioner considers the latter order on the face of his said petition as not only insulting, but a most glaring injustice, and further violence to his feelings, personal liberty, and character; and he adds, that he ought not to comply with the last named order, as it seemed intended to thrust him into the world as a disgraced and marked man, making tacit confession of his guilt by complying with the order. Obtaining no hearing or redress on this last-named petition, the prisoner, on the 12th of April last, submitted a memorial to Deemster Heywood, in which he showed the judge by a clear, conclusive, and unanswerable argument, that he, the judge, had violated the law, as well as common justice and common sense, in every step which he had taken in this most extraordinary and unfortunate affair; and he begged the deemster, that for the sake of common justice, and for the credit of the jurisprudence of the island, he would lose not a moment in discharging the prisoner, without costs or recognizance. On the 18th of April the prisoner drew up a memorial expressing his grievances, addressed to the right hon. Secretary of State for the Home Department. What he (Dr. Bowring) wished to ask the right hon. Baronet, with reference to the case which he had brought under his notice, was, whether his attention had been called to the circumstances under which John Waters Coldicott was arrested and long imprisoned in Castle Rushen, in the Isle of Man?

Sir J. Graham

said, the hon. and learned Member had made rather a long statement; and, if he was not mistaken, had read it principally from a Manx paper. He was prepared to admit that a communication had reached him on the subject; and he had, in consequence, sent on the day that he had received it to the Isle of Man, for some explanation of the facts stated. He had not yet received that explanation; but when it arrived, which he expected would be in a few days, he should be able to give a reply to the question put by the hon. Member.

Dr. Bowring

asked the right hon. Baronet, whether any measures had been taken to provide against the delay of justice which had resulted from the nonholding of the Chancery Court in the Isle of Man?

Sir J. Graham

said, that the delay complained of arose entirely from the serious illness of the Lieutenant Governor

Back to