HC Deb 08 June 1846 vol 87 cc123-9
MR. J. COLLETT

wished to ask a question. It was three weeks since, in the discharge of his public duty, he had in that House made a statement impugning the character of a magistrate and minister of justice. He had then read affidavits. The right hon. Baronet (Sir J. Graham) requested copies of those affidavits, and gave as a reason for the request that he desired an early opportunity of making inquiries on the subject. The right hon. Baronet had been furnished with those documents, and a few days subsequently had stated that they were extrajudicial, and that therefore no proceedings could be taken against the parties in question in case they turned out to be untrue. The right hon. Gentleman at the same time had been kind enough to recommend him to bring an action against Sir C. Taylor in the Court of Queen's Bench; but the question was, not whether the affidavits were extrajudicial or simple statements, but whether they were true or untrue—whether the magistrate had or had not acted in the manner alleged; and it was not to be expected that a private individual should bring an action against a magistrate for having improperly discharged his public duties. He therefore took the liberty of referring the right hon. Baronet to the statements made, and of asking him whether Sir C. Taylor still continued in the commission of the peace for the county of Southampton?

SIR J. GRAHAM

It would be remembered that when the hon. Gentleman first brought the conduct of Sir C. Taylor under the notice of the House, he brought forward a statement, and mentioned one particular individual who was the accuser, and on whose information the hon. Gentleman relied. He had made minute inquiries, and had referred the allegations to the magistrates sitting at the petty sessions of the town in which the case under consideration had occurred. He had received an explanation from the two justices by whom the information in that case had been granted, and they informed him that the person on whose accuracy the hon. Member had relied, was a convicted felon. They distinctly asserted that the statement of that individual was untrue; he had been perfectly satisfied with that explanation, and this result he communicated to the hon. Gentleman. The hon. Gentleman then started a new case, and produced certain affidavits proceeding from other quarters, and not from the convicted felon to whose testimony the hon. Gentleman in the first instance referred. He obtained copies of those affidavits; he submitted them to the law advisers of the Crown; and he was then informed, that if false, they could not be made the groundwork of a criminal prosecution, or of a civil action for slander, because they were extrajudicial; and that, on the other hand, if they were true, they might be made the groundwork, not of a civil action against Sir C. Taylor, but of a criminal information, to try the question before the Queen's Bench whether that magistrate was worthy to hold Her Majesty's commission. He (Sir J. Graham) had not under the circumstances thought it necessary to prosecute the inquiry beyond this. He sent Sir C. Taylor copies of the affidavits, and Sir C. Taylor gave him the most positive assurance that in all the more important particulars they were altogether incorrect. He could not declare, on the part of the Crown, that the investigation should be carried further, and he did not hesitate to tell the hon. Gentleman that Sir C. Taylor still remained in Her Majesty's commission.

MR. P. SCROPE

thought that it was a most insulting mode, adopted by the hon. Gentleman, of dealing with the case, to make, first, a very strong charge, and then to ask if Sir C. Taylor still held a commission of the peace. The hon. Gentleman had, when he found his case breaking down, sent a fishing commission, consisting of an attorney, down to Southampton, and had, by this means, procured some affidavits relative to the transaction. They were then brought before the House, and had, of course, been reported at length in the papers. Now, Sir C. Taylor had been greatly injured by this course. He had even come up to town with the object of taking legal proceedings against the hon. Member; but, by the advice of his friends, he had abstained from so doing, and had been assured that his character had not suffered. The hon. Member did not seem to think so, but he should have made his charge in some more tangible shape than that in which he had repeated it. Nothing could be more unjust than for the hon. Member to make these ex parte statements.

MR. COLLETT

would maintain that the charge to which he called attention was in very distinct terms; and all he asked was inquiry.

MR. NEWDEGATE

thought that the course pursued, in reference to this matter, by the hon. Member was most unwise; and he felt persuaded that the allegations against Sir C. Taylor were unfounded. The character of that Gentleman had been called in question; and he trusted the House would see the propriety of expressing disapprobation of the practice of getting affidavits.

MR. WAKLEY

conceived that, after what had been said, there remained only one course for the friends of Sir C. Taylor to pursue, and that was to move the appointment of a Committee. ["Oh!"] Why, they were dissatisfied with what had been done. They thought the allegations of the hon. Member for Athlone (Mr. Collett) were unjust; and they ought, therefore, at once to institute an inquiry in order that they might know the truth. The hon. Member fully believed in the correctness of his statements; and, as the right hon. Baronet did not, nevertheless, think it necessary to make any further inquiries, it became the imperative duty of the House to inquire how the magistrate had acted, and if it were customary for the poor to be entrapped into the commission of crime for the purpose of being thrown into gaol. A case which, both as regarded the individual and the House, more loudly called for investigation, he had never known.

MR. BANKES

put it to the hon. Member who had just spoken, what he would think if any person were to get up affidavits accusing him — admitting the hon. Member's character to be as clear, and he (Mr. Bankes) fully admitted it to be so, as that of any Member of the House—what would he think if another Member were to get up and say, "Oh! your character will never be cleared unless you have a Committee?" Was that the way in which they were to go on in that House? Were they to be made the objects of public scandal, and not to be allowed to have their characters vindicated without a Committee? Would it be for a man's advantage afterwards to have it said that he was the subject of the investigation of a Committee? He should like to hear from the Secretary of the Home Department what was the nature of these affidavits. He thought all voluntary affidavits had been put an end to, as being instrumental to vain and idle scandal. He believed they were illegal, and was surprised that the right hon. Gentleman should have mentioned them without the censure they deserved.

MR. HUME

did not think that the condemnation of the conduct of the hon. Member for Athlone was called for. That hon. Member had acted from a sense of public duty; he had been informed, and believed the information to be true, of a magistrate having acted in a manner which he conceived to be unjust; and in bringing the subject before the public he had only taken that course which, under similar circumstances, he (Mr. Hume) should have adopted. The facts of the case could certainly not be ascertained without some inquiry.

The SOLICITOR GENERAL

had not the honour of knowing Sir C. Taylor, and only knew that a charge of a very serious nature had been made against the character of that gentleman, on the authority of an individual who was known to be a convicted felon. That charge, unworthy of attention when it was known from whom it emanated, was now abandoned, and a second charge was brought forward on the authority of certain affidavits, sworn by certain persons, under what circumstances they were not exactly informed. If these were proved true, any one might obtain an ample redress by applying for and obtaining a criminal information in the Court of Queen's Bench against the magistrate whose conduct was thus impugned. If they were false, Sir C. Taylor had no remedy but in the sense of justice in that House; and he (the Solicitor General) regretted to say that it appeared to him that the only way justice could be done was, that some censure should be pronounced upon one who, like the hon. Member for Athlone, had come forward on the sole foundation of affidavits, which, if false from beginning to end, exposed their authors to no punishment, and armed with the impunity which surrounded a Member of that House; stated his belief in the allegations they contained. The hon. Member for Dorsetshire had alluded to the illegality of those affidavits. Now, affidavits which were extrajudicial, which were not sworn in the course of any legal proceedings, might be so far called illegal that no prosecution could be instituted upon them if false. And what was still worse, if the affidavits were sworn in order to instruct a Member of the House for the purpose of bringing them before the House, no civil action would lie upon them. They were, therefore, rather to be considered a nullity than anything else. They were not, however, illegal; for, if they were, the party making them might be prosecuted if the statements were false. But they were a nullity; and no magistrate or officer ought to administer an oath except in the course of judicial proceedings. Unfortunately, however, the party was subject to no penalty; and thus it was that any one might, under the solemn sanction of an oath, make statements affecting the character of the most honourable of men, and then place them in the hands of a Member of that House, who, having stated in his place his belief of their truth, the newspapers circulated the report throughout the world, and the party injured had no redress. He could not proceed against the Member of Parliament, on account of his privilege; and he could not proceed against the party making the statements, because they had been made with a view to a proceeding in that House. As to moving for a Committee, it just amounted to this, that the most worthless of men might throw out any imputations against the character of the most honourable—imputations which might be known to be utterly unfounded, and yet there was to be no way of vindication except by occupying the public time by a Committee of Inquiry. He hoped no such Committee would be granted; but that the hon. Member who had given currency to these most injurious and most unfounded statements would—for he was the only party capable—do justice to the injured party.

LORD G. BENTINCK

said, that the hon. Member for Athlone had expressed surprise at the warmth which had been evinced by another hon. Member; but it would indeed have been surprising if that hon. Gentleman had been so wanting in the feelings which characterized Englishmen in general, as to express himself without warmth in such a case where a gentleman, above 80 years of age, who had been a magistrate for half a century, was charged upon such light grounds with an offence such as that which the hon. Member for Athlone had presumed to impute to him. If the hon. Member wished for a Committee, one of a different kind might be appointed with great propriety, and that would be a Committee to inquire into the conduct of the hon. Gentleman himself—a Committee to inquire whether an hon. Member of that House had not been guilty, upon light, frivolous, and vexatious grounds, of being the instrument of propagating a foul, false, and slanderous charge against a magistrate of the country.

MR. B. OSBORNE

said, that after all, this debate was a much ado about nothing. The hon. Member for Athlone appeared to be a sort of monomaniac upon matters of this kind, and before bringing such charges upon the testimony of a convicted felon, he ought to have made a more diligent inquiry. The hon. Member, no doubt, believed the charges to be true; but those who knew the hon. Member took them cum grano sails, for on such points the hon. Member was over credulous. He sent his attorney down into a country town where plenty of blackguards were to be found, and where he (Mr. Osborne) knew that Sir C. Taylor had made himself obnoxious by his rigid and just administration of the law, to get up a case against him. The hon. Member had better cure himself of these fancies; and he ought to apologize to the House for having on insufficient evidence brought forward a grave charge against a most respectable and deserving gentleman.

MR. BRIGHT

defended the conduct of the hon. Member for Athlone. That hon. Member had seen certain statements injurious to the character of a magistrate, if true; and if untrue, most unfair towards him. The hon. Member gave notice of his intention to bring the subject forward, and the Home Secretary undertook to make inquiry; but the right hon. Gentleman probably inquired of Sir C. Taylor himself, and of the policeman, parties from whom it was not very probable he would elicit the truth. In the meantime the hon. Member for Athlone made further inquiries, and obtained from persons of respectable character affidavits that they believed the statements to be true. He (Mr. Bright) had seen the woman, and the other person who had given evidence, and their conduct and demeanour did not subject them to the suspicion of having spoken untruly. This much he would state, that since this case had occurred there had appeared in a Worcestershire paper the acknowledgment of a gamekeeper, that he had placed a snare with dead game in the pathway leading to the church. Now, he did not charge Sir C. Taylor with being guilty of that which had been laid to his charge; but at the same time he did not think that the hon. Member for Athlone merited the remarks that had been made upon him. If the hon. Member's conduct was the result of monomania, it at all events took a humane and benevolent course in respect of the game laws, which it would be well for the country if some others were to imitate.

MR. W. R. COLLETT

said, he had been put to much trouble by his constituents mistaking him for the mover in this matter, and he wished altogether to dissociate his name from it. He felt that the matter ought to be carried further: he knew not whether the hon. Member for Athlone were right or wrong, but in his position he was bound to prove his statements. He (Mr. W. R. Collett) had made inquiry, and had found that there was not a more worthy or honourable magistrate in England than Sir C. Taylor. Unless the hon. Member for Athlone apologized, it was incumbent that some further step should be taken.

Subject at an end.