§ MR. G. H. MOOREsaid, be begged to call the attention of the House to the statement made by the hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary for the Colonies when, on 974 a former night, the appointment of Mr. Stonor to a Colonial Judgeship was under discussion. He had thought he was not justified in stopping the House from going into Committee of Ways and Means by a specific Motion; but, so far from being satisfied with the statement made by the hon. Gentleman (Mr. F. Peel), the affair appeared to him to be darker, more mysterious, and more inexplicable than ever. The hon. Gentleman stated that when an application for the office in question had been sent to the Colonial Office by Mr. Stonor, he also sent in a package of testimonials, but that the package had passed unexamined by the clerk under whose hands it came, and by himself. He (Mr. Moore) did not insinuate a doubt that, when the hon. Gentleman said that, he stated the truth as he believed it to be but it appeared to him (Mr. Moore) to be utterly impossible that the Under Secretary for the Colonies could have stated the whole truth of the case, for unless there was something behind the question which the House did not know, and which the public did not know, it would amount to this: that Mr. Stonor having sent in testimonials to the Colonial Office, they escaped observation altogether, and he was appointed to the office of a Judge merely because he had written a letter to say he would like to be so appointed. Now, that was utterly impossible, and if the testimonials which he had sent with his application were not examined, the public had a right to know on what ground, if not on that ground—and on what recommendation, if not on that recommendation—he was appointed. He (Mr. Moore) had reason to believe that this gentleman was appointed, he would not say by the Duke of Newcastle, or by the hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary for the Colonies, but by an influence that unfortunately had the ear of the Duke of Newcastle. That was the influence from which the appointment had proceeded, and the appointment was made, not in ignorance of the corrupt practices or in spite of the corrupt practices of this gentleman, but because of his corrupt practices—because he had handed over to the hon. Gentleman now Member for Sligo, and then a Junior Lord of the Treasury, an influence which he had obtained in Sligo during the election of 1853, through the corrupt practices for which he was reported. Under these circumstances, it was his (Mr. Moore's) intention to make a specific Motion on the subject, to the effect that a Select Committee should be appointed to 975 take into consideration the appointment of Henry Stonor to a Judgeship in the colony of Victoria, the said Henry Stonor having been reported to the House by a Committee of the House to be guilty of bribery at an election for Sligo in the year 1853.
MR. HUMEsaid, he thought that when all the Members of the Committee were not satisfied of the actual guilt of the individual, though a majority did carry the reproval, the Government had gone almost beyond what he should have expected. They came forward and declared that they were not aware at the time of his appointment of the charge against this individual, and they had cancelled the appointment. That being so, it did appear to him that it would be in the highest degree beyond anything he had ever known to take the course suggested and he, therefore, hoped the hon. Gentleman would reconsider his Motion.
§ MR. FITZSTEPHEN FRENCHsaid, he could not avoid expressing very great astonishment at what had fallen from the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Hume). He thought some explanation was due to the House by the hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary for the Colonies, for having led the Government into a grave and reprehensible course, by which a great and lasting injury was inflicted on the gentleman who had been appointed to this office. Why was Mr. Stoner appointed? The hon. Gentleman admitted that it was not on account of his legal acquirements, or for any professional reason, because he stated he did not open the paper in which the recommendations of Mr. Stoner were contained. He asked the House to remember what this dereliction of duty on the part of the hon. Gentleman had done. It had taken Mr. Stonor from an honourable profession, in which, if he (Mr. French) understood rightly, he was earning an income of 1,000l. a year, and he had placed a stigma upon his name. The hon. Gentleman (Mr. F. Peel) admitted that on Mr. Stonor's part there was no concealment whatever, that every information that could be required, not as to his legal capability, but as to this particular act attributed to him, Mr. Stoner had fairly and openly laid before him. Was that the way the duties of a public office should be performed? Was it right that official and judicial appointments should be made without inquiry? Is it right that even the common duty of looking over the papers entrusted to his care should not be performed? He believed that in the case of 976 all legal appointments the papers were laid before the Attorney General; why was that dispensed with in this particular case?
§ MR. FITZSTEPHEN FRENCHsaid, he was not endeavouring to attach any blame to the hon. and learned Gentleman. He blamed no one but the Under Secretary of the Colonial Department. The question to be decided by that House was not only the personal one in relation to Mr. Stoner, but whether an hon. Member of that House, who had, according to his own statement, neglected his duties and brought lasting discredit on the Government, should be permitted to retain the office which he now holds.
§ MR. FREDERICK PEELsaid, that after the pointed reference made to him by the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down, he might be excused for restating the circumstances under which Mr. Stonor was appointed. That gentleman had addressed a letter of application for the appointment in question to the Colonial Office, and he accompanied that letter with a packet of testimonials, and that packet also contained a printed paper referring to the Resolution of the Sligo Election Committee. The letter of application referred to the testimonials which were sent into the Office, though it did not refer to the printed paper which was put with these testimonials; but it further stated that these testimonials had been given him by persons in the highest position in the profession of the law—by the Lord Chief Justice of the Queen's Bench, by Vice Chancellor Stuart, and by other persons not perhaps quite so eminent as these, but still of high standing in their profession. It might be an omission on the part of the Colonial Office that they had not examined these testimonials for the purpose of verifying Mr. Stonor's statement, as to the parties from whom they came; it was certainly an oversight, which was to be regretted, but some apology, perhaps, might be found in the laboriousness of that Office, and in the impossibility, with all the diligence and industry which any person could employ, of always guarding every approach by which an occasional error might be committed.
§ MR. WHITESIDEsaid, he was sure that the hon. Gentleman who had just explained his conduct had dealt with the House in a spirit of perfect sincerity; but that matter concerned the administration of justice, and he could assure the hon. 977 Gentleman that while he entertained the most perfect respect for him, he had heard his speech of the preceding day with great pain. Was he to understand that the Members of a Government, who were preeminently distinguished for their administrative ability, when they came to consider the claims or the qualifications of an individual who was to decide on questions of property, liberty, and life, never condescended to read the papers which had been sent in to them relative to those claims or qualifications? If the noble Duke at the head of the Colonial Office was so much engaged that he could not perform that duty, could he not transfer it to the eminent and able person who represented the Colonial Department in that House? And what was the vindication of his own conduct which had been offered by that hon. Gentleman? He had got a package containing certain papers; but was he (Mr. Whiteside) to understand that the Lord Chief Justice of England and other Judges had certified in favour of a gentleman who, abandoning the practice of the bar in his own country, had inflicted on Ireland his talents in the trade of corruption? Was he to understand that a gentleman who had been convicted of bribery by a Committee of that House—["No, no!"]—who had been convicted of bribery by a Committee of that House, because the majority of that Committee was the Committee—who had frankly—and he would give Mr. Stonor credit for that frankness—who had frankly forwarded to the Colonial Office the certificate of his conviction, but which certificate they had not read—was he to understand that that gentleman had been appointed under such circumstances to a high judicial situation? Incapacity and ignorance had frequently been inflicted on the bar in Ireland, and they had frequently been inflicted on the Colonies; but he had hoped, that, in addition to incapacity and ignorance, the Government did not intend to inflict on the Colonies likewise men skilled in the work of corruption. In his humble opinion—and he gave that opinion with the most entire respect for the hon. Gentleman—the fact that a man could be appointed a Judge without even a clerk in the Colonial Department having noticed the documents containing his testimonials, afforded the severest censure that could be pronounced upon a Ministry that was said to contain all the administrative ability of the country.
§ MR. BOWYERcould not avoid expressing his surprise at the course which had 978 been taken by the hon. Member for Mayo (Mr. Moore), who had stated to the House what he (Mr. Bowyer) said to him in the strictest confidence. He should not have made that statement to the hon. Member unless he had believed that it would have been treated as strictly confidential; and he made it also in the fullest belief that Mr. Stonor was innocent, and that he had been unjustly—that was, erroneously—convicted by the Committee. Had he believed him to be guilty of the offence imputed to him, he (Mr. Bowyer) would have done nothing to screen him. But believing him to be innocent, he was desirous that he should not have an accuser of the ability and ingenuity of the hon. Member for Mayo (Mr. Moore), who would be sure to make the best of the evidence against him, and might possibly induce the House to assent to his conclusions. He believed that under these circumstances he was quite justified, according to the practice of Parliament and the feelings of every honourable man, in saying to the hon. Member, "I beg you not to speak against my friend." On coming into the House the other evening he heard his name used by the hon. Member for Mayo; but he was not aware of the full extent of what he said. The hon. Member on that occasion made use of some unjustifiable expressions about "pouring water on a drowned rat." Now his learned friend, Mr. Stonor, was not a drowned rat; for, though he admitted that he had been guilty of indiscretion, he still believed that he was innocent of the offence of which he had been convicted by the Committee. Had he been aware of the circumstances under which the hon. Member for Mayo addressed the House on the previous evening, he (Mr. Bowyer) should have then addressed it in a manner very different from that in which he did. He then believed that the hon. Gentleman had then spoken merely in vindication of himself—[Mr. MOORE: Hear, hear!]—and he consequently gave him full credit for not having, without necessity, repeated what he (Mr. Bowyer) said to him in confidence. He understood that the hon. Gentleman had been compelled by the House to disclose what he had disclosed. But he found that this was not the case. By the course which he had taken he had placed him (Mr. Bowyer) in a most unpleasant, and his friend Mr. Stoner in a most unjust position; and of this he thought he had a right to complain. How did the case against Mr. Stonor now stand? He had 979 placed the whole of his case plainly before the Government, making not the best, but the worst of it. He knew from Mr. Stonor that he was not appointed, as was supposed, by the influence of a Lord of the Treasury who was returned for Sligo, but in consequence of his reputation, of his qualifications for the office, and of the recommendations he received. In what position was he now placed? He was previously in receipt of a considerable income from his profession; he had abandoned this, sold his property, and had sailed to a colony. He was not a man in easy circumstances; his brother, who was in a lamentable state of health, and his mother, were dependent upon him. He had abandoned his prospects here, believing that the Government were thoroughly cognisant of the whole circumstances affecting him. He was certain, from the intimate relations that existed between himself and Mr. Stonor, that he would not have accepted the offer had he thought there was any doubt that the Government were cognisant of the circumstances in which he stood. Mr. Stonor had spoken to him of the generous manner in which he had been treated by the Government; he said they had not considered the finding of the Committee final, but had gone into the merits of the case, and considered the evidence, and that, having done so, they had come to the conclusion that he had been erroneously convicted, and that the finding of the Committee ought not to be a bar to his employment under the Crown. These slips would happen; but he certainly thought this case showed that a good deal of that reform of which they heard in the civil administration of the Government was wanted. When he found that an important judicial office in a colony was bestowed without a due examination of the documents affecting the person who applied for it, he thought he might fairly call for some change in the mode by which persons were appointed to responsible offices under the Crown. He never knew a harder case than this. Here was a whole family ruined by the neglect of the Colonial Office. It was all very well for official men to say they had made a mistake. It was easily explained in that House, and there were plenty of men to cheer them when they said they had made a mistake, and were sorry for it; but it was a serious matter for those who were affected by the neglect. He would not have referred to this subject had he not heard a notice of Motion by the 980 hon. Member for Mayo, which looked like a fresh attack on Mr. Stonor. [Mr. MOORE: No, no!] He appealed to that hon. Gentleman whether he had not done enough in vindication of what he thought to be right; and whether he should not now cease from any further attacks on Mr. Stonor. The hon. Member had ruined a man and ruined a family. The hon. Member had already enough to answer for in this matter.
§ MR. G. H. MOORE, in explanation, said, that a very grave personal imputation had been made against him. The hon. Gentleman who had just spoken said that he had broken confidence with him. When was that confidence entrusted to him? Why, on those very benches, with several Gentlemen sitting round, the hon. Gentleman the Member for Dundalk (Mr. Bowyer) speaking in as loud a tone of voice as he had done while addressing the House. On that occasion he told the hon. Gentleman that he intended to expose what he believed to be the real state of the case. The hon. Gentleman requested him not to speak, and he did not do so. Subsequently the hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary for the Colonies taunted him with having sat silent, and he then said that he had been requested not to speak. Upon this, several hon. Gentlemen called upon him to name the person by whom he had been so requested, and it was under these circumstances that he did so.
§ MR. MALINSsaid, that the question before the House was not so much as it affected Mr. Stonor, but as it affected the Government. He could not from the first help being struck with surprise how the hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary for the Colonies could have sanctioned the appointment of a person who had been convicted of bribery by a Committee of that House, and whose conduct had been canvassed in debates carried on in his presence. [Mr. F. PEEL said, he had not heard the debates with reference to the Sligo election.] At all events, the conduct of Mr. Stoner was perfectly notorious; and yet in the course of a few months this conduct was overlooked, and he was appointed to be a Judge, and to take part in the administration of justice. As it was, he felt for Mr. Stonor, although he had quitted the practice of his profession, for the purpose of taking part, and a corrupt part, in the Sligo election. ["No, no!"] Was the House prepared to acquiesce in the finding of the Committee? He was surprised, the other night, to hear 981 the hon. Under Secretary for the Colonies impugn that decision; but he was followed by the hon. Member for Exeter (Mr. Divett), whose experience in these matters was so great, and he told the House that he came to the conclusion that Mr. Stonor was guilty in this matter, with as little hesitation as he ever felt in a similar case in his life. He (Mr. Maims) was not then aware that Mr. Stoner had actually sailed for the colony; but that being so, he must say that he participated in the feelings of the hon. Member for Dundalk (Mr. Bowyer). Mr. Stonor was gone out. He was to be recalled. If so, how was he to be indemnified? How was reparation to be made to this injured gentleman for the mistake of the Secretary and Under Secretary of the Colonies? How could they replace him in his practice, and his family in the same position as before? He was recalled, stigmatised, and degraded. If the Government had performed their duty of perusing a document sent for their perusal, all this would not have occurred, and in the course of years, by devotion to his profession, Mr. Stonor might have removed the impression this transaction had made, and at a future time received an appointment without question. The injury to Mr. Stonor was irreparable. But it was advisable the attention of the House should not be withdrawn from the real point. The Government had made great professions—and he had given them credit for those professions—of a desire to repress corruption in every form. If it turned out that the Government had been party to appointing a gentleman to a judicial situation with the full knowledge that that gentleman had himself been engaged in bribery and corruption, what would the House think of those professions to repress these corrupt practices? And now they had heard from the hon. Member for Dundalk a statement which required explanation from the Government. The hon. Member for Dundalk stated that the Government had not only read the document Mr. Stonor sent, but had read the evidence taken before the Committee.
§ MR. BOWYERexplained, that what he had said was, that Mr. Stonor left England under the belief that the Government were fully cognisant of the offence alleged against him. Mr. Stonor was no doubt mistaken. He (Mr. Bowyer) was quite certain her Majesty's Government were not cognisant of the circumstances.
§ MR. MALINSsaid, he understood the 982 hon. Gentleman to have stated that Mr. Stonor said the Government had perused the evidence. It appeared that Mr. Stonor did not say that, but was under the impression that the Government had considered his case and come to a conclusion in his favour; and he was reminded that the expression which the hon. Member (Mr. Bowyer) used was, that "the Government had taken a generous view of the matter," and had given Mr. Stoner this judicial appointment. The Under Secretary for the Colonies stated that two of Mr. Stonor's testimonials were from the Lord Chief Justice of England and Vice Chancellor Stuart, but he had not stated whether those testimonials were read. If the Secretary of the Colonies could not read them—if the Under Secretary of the Colonies could not read them—still, could no gentleman in the Colonial Office be found to read and examine those testimonials, and report upon them? The matter was incredible, and the House should pause before coining to a conclusion that, under these circumstances, the appointment of Mr. Stonor was made without some representation having been made which induced the Government not to examine into these testimonials. The hon. Member for Mayo (Mr. G. H. Moore) stated his impression that Mr. Stonor was appointed because he was guilty of these practices, and as a reward for engaging in them. Could it be possible that the Government, having a knowledge of the circumstances, purposely abstained from perusing the documents before Mr. Stonor's appointment? He meant no disrespect to Mr. Stonor, for whom he felt very sincerely, but he thought that this was a fair opportunity to state his impression that the honours of the legal, as of all other professions, ought to be given to those who fairly earned them in arduous prosecution of their calling, and not to those who merely took a particular part in any election or other party proceedings. He trusted the House would not be induced to adopt the view of the hon. Member for Dundalk. He trusted they would regard this, not as a question between Mr. Stonor and the House, but as a matter affecting the proceedings of the Government; and, taking that view, that the House would insist upon investigation, to get at the bottom of the transaction, and to ascertain why it was that Mr. Stoner was appointed; and he hoped the Government would then consider how they could make reparation for the obvious 983 injury Mr. Stonor had suffered at their hands.
§ MR. W. O. STANLEYsaid, he regretted to witness the altercation that had taken place. He supposed that because it was St. Patrick's night the Irish Members indulged in a disturbance. He thought Mr. Stonor had received punishment severe enough, and he was not one who had ever endeavoured to extenuate cases of this sort. He had always thought such persons should be dealt with severely, and he thought Mr. Stonor had been dealt with severely, being probably ruined for life. He should like to know if hon. Gentlemen would be so zealous if similar occurrences were brought home to all in that House? The hon. and learned Member who had just sat down felt very much hurt at the reflection on the legal profession, but he would ask him if there were not some in high position in that House, and some members of the bar elsewhere, who had been guilty of conduct as atrocious as that of Mr. Stonor. They had the word of the hon. Under Secretary for the Colonies, on his own part, and on the part of the noble Duke who presided over that department, that they had no knowledge of this transaction at the time they made the appointment, and, therefore, believing men when they stated such to be the fact, in his opinion they ought not to pursue the matter further. He was satisfied justice had been done, and that the House had vindicated its own honour. He might shortly have to bring a similar case before the House, when he might have to ask hon. Gentlemen opposite to agree with him in hunting down one who used to sit on their own side for conduct as censurable as that of Mr. Stonor.
§ MR. I. BUTTsaid, surely the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Stanley) did not seriously imagine he was turning away the attention of the House by a perfectly irrelevant, and, as an Irish Member, he must say a perfectly unwarranted, observation. If the hon. Gentleman intended to combine some atonement with the charge, he had perfectly succeeded, inasmuch as he had proved that the privilege of irrelevancy on St. Patrick's day was not confined to Irish Members. An observation more savouring of personal bitterness and party feeling he certainly had never yet heard than the last observation the hon. Gentleman had addressed to the House. It was not a question of hunting down Mr. Stonor, but of finding out where was the 984 gross neglect, or worse than gross neglect, which placed Mr. Stoner in the false position described by the hon. Member for Dundalk. He (Mr. I. Butt) rose, as he took some part in the matter last year, not for the purpose of hunting down Mr. Stonor, but to call the attention of the Under Secretary of the Colonies to a specific fact. Last year the writ for the borough of Sligo was moved for as a matter of course. He had felt it his duty to oppose its issue. A debate arose in that House, and, in the course of his observations, he read the Resolution of the Sligo Election Committee, which stated that an alderman of the borough of Sligo was bribed by the payment of 103l. by Henry Stonor. The statement was rather remarkable and novel. An alderman had been bribed. A discussion followed. Some Gentlemen, among whom was the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General, also took part in it, and referred to that Resolution. There was a division, and in that division, upon the Motion of the noble Lord the Secretary of State for the Home Department, the Under Secretary for the Colonies was found voting. He asked that House, and the country would also ask, where was Ministerial responsibility, if a Minister of the Crown, representing a department of the Government, not taking part in a discussion, but voting in the division, was thus to shelter himself by saying he knew nothing of what was discussed in the House of Commons—he knew nothing of the question on which he voted? On another occasion a friend of Mr. Stonor brought forward the case of Mr. Stonor, and the question was discussed, though he certainly did not see the name of the Under Secretary for the Colonies in the division; but where, he asked, was Ministerial responsibility, if Ministers were to say they knew nothing, of what was discussed in the House of Commons? He could understand if the hon. Gentleman had said he was asleep—he then could, as he said, understand it. But he could not accept such an excuse from so acute and so wakeful a Gentleman as the Under Secretary for the Colonies; there was only one Minister who might just now be entitled to urge it. [A Laugh]. If a Gentleman was present in a debate, and took part in a division, he ought not to turn round and say he knew nothing about it. If any one said the Committee were not justified in the Resolution to which they came, what would be the position of Election Committees of that House? Elec- 985 tion Committees were sworn to discharge their duty, and it was casting a slur on their decision if the Government appointed persons to situations who had been reported by name to have been guilty of bribery. He hoped the hon. Member for Mayo would persevere. It was not for the purpose of hunting down Mr. Stonor. It was the Government that had hunted Mr. Stonor down, by appointing him without reading his testimonials, and revoking that appointment the moment censure was cast upon him. In justice to the colony, and in justice to that House, they ought to know upon whose recommendation Mr. Stonor was appointed, and how it was that a slur was cast on the Committee by appointing a man to a judicial office against whom they had reported. That Report incapacitates Mr. Stonor from office, and yet at this moment he may, perhaps, be sentencing somebody for bribery. But this he would say, that if that of which he was accused was his misfortune and not his fault, it incapacitated him from office.
§ MR. JOHN SADLEIRSir, I shall not enter into a discussion as to what are the rights and privileges of the Government in dealing with any case; but the hon. and learned Gentleman who has just spoken has thought proper to remind the House that Election Committees act under the obligation of an oath, and has signified his opinion that there is something highly improper in acting against the decision of such a Committee, though carried only by a majority of one. Now, I beg to remind the hon. and learned Gentleman, in answer to that observation, that it often happens the decisions of juries given upon oath are, notwithstanding, daily set aside by the judges of the land. As to the conduct of the hon. Member for Mayo (Mr. G. H. Moore), who has had the good taste and high spirit in my absence, and without the slightest notice given to me, to endeavour to found accusations affecting my honour and character, I say it is most unjustifiable and indefensible. He has ventilated that which I now tell him to his face is a slander and a libel.
§ MR. SPEAKERThe hon. Member for Sligo has made use of an unparliamentary expression. It is impossible for this House to listen to him. He must immediately retract it.
§ MR. JOHN SADLEIRI bow with the utmost respect, and at once retract the word slander, but I say that that which the hon. Member for Mayo has stated of 986 me is a libel, for which there is not a particle of foundation. The hon. Member for Mayo having stated behind my back and in my absence that the appointment of Mr. Stonor was made at my instance, and as a reward—[Mr. G. H. MOORE: I never said anything of the kind.] I am not at all surprised at the retraction by the hon. Gentleman. He is entitled to every indulgence at my hands, because I know he lives upon the circulation and invention of the most unfounded statements for political purposes. The hon. Member for Mayo is in the constant habit of making statements without a single particle of evidence to sustain them—
§ MR. SPEAKERThe hon. Gentleman is again out of order. I really must request him to be more careful. He must retract the expression which he last used.
§ MR. JOHN SADLEIRI retract, Sir, the expression; but I repeat that I am not at all surprised at finding the hon. Member prepared to stand up in his place in Parliament, and, after having most deliberately reflected on my conduct and my name, in the presence of many of the Friends who now surround him, retract those reflections. Having given this flat and unqualified denial to the statement of the hon. Gentleman, and having challenged him to the proof of the assertion, and which he has now thought proper so instantaneously to withdraw, I shall now resume my seat.
§ MR. G. H. MOORESir, I must again beg to explain what I really did say. What I said was, that I believed that Mr. Stonor was appointed to the situation which he lately held in consequence of having transferred to the hon. Gentleman opposite that interest in the borough of Sligo which he had obtained by corrupt practices. That was what I said, and I believe hon. Gentlemen will allow that that was what I said.
§ Main Question put and agreed to.