HC Deb 19 June 1857 vol 146 cc97-105
The SERJEANT-AT-ARMS

reported that Peter Johnson and John Lord had been served with the Order of the House; that John Lord was in attendance, but that Peter Johnson was not in attendance, pursuant to the said Order.

MR. H. BERKELEY

wished, before the person in attendance was called in, to ask a question of the Speaker upon a point of form. He found, from the Rules and Regulations of the House, that no Member could examine witnesses except through the medium of the Speaker, and he wished to know whether that regulation was to be adhered to?

MR. SPEAKER

In answer to the question of the hon. Member, I have to say that he has correctly stated the effect of the rule in question; but it has been the custom to allow a degree of latitude for the convenience of the House, and questions put directly by Members have been supposed to be put through the Speaker.

SIR GEORGE GREY

I understand that your order, Sir, has been served upon John Lord, who is in attendance, although Johnson is not. I have, therefore, to move that you, Sir, do issue your warrant that Peter Johnson be taken into custody.

Motion put, and agreed to.

Ordered, That Peter Johnson, having been served with the Order of this House to attend the House forthwith, and having neglected to attend, be taken into the custody of the Serjeant-at-Arms attending this House, and that Mr. Speaker do issue his warrant accordingly.

SIR GEORGE GREY

As John Lord is in attendance, I beg to move that he be now called in, and that the Speaker do explain to him the nature of the charge which has been made against him, and which, if proved, will amount to a breach of the privileges of this House, and that the said John Lord be informed he is at liberty to make any statement.

Motion put, and agreed to.

Ordered, That John Lord be called in.

Then the said John Lord being called in, was examined at the bar, as follows:—

MR. SPEAKER

John Lord, a statement has been made to this House that yesterday one Peter Johnson offered to one Abraham Rothwell the sum of £50 to induce him to go to New Orleans in order to avoid giving evidence before the Rochdale Election Committee, and that you, John Lord, were present when such offer was made, and endeavoured to induce Abraham Rothwell to accept it. Have you anything to say in answer to such statement?

Witness: I never attempted to induce him to go.

MR. SPEAKER

Have you anything further to say in answer to the statement that has been made?

Witness: I did hear him say if he wished to go away he would pay his outfit as far as £50. That was all I heard him say.

MR. SPEAKER

Whom did you hear say so?

Witness: Peter Johnson.

The witness was then ordered to withdraw, but to remain in attendance until the pleasure of the House should be made known.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

I understand the person in attendance, John Lord, to have said in substance that he never did induce nor attempt to induce Abraham Rothwell to accept any money; but that he heard Peter Johnson offer to Rothwell the sum of £50 to go abroad to New Orleans. I beg to suggest to the House that the question now occurs whether any further inquiry shall be pursued by the House Itself or adopted in some other form. If the House undertakes the duty of pursuing such an inquiry, I think it must be aware of the difficulty of managing such an investigation. As to the party now in attendance, I should deprecate any further questions being put to him, because, to a certain extent, he appears to be a party to the charge. He has in some degree denied that charge; but if the House shall determine itself to continue the inquiry, I think the person in attendance should be cautioned that he may decline to answer questions that may tend to criminate himself. But, upon the whole, I would humbly suggest to the House, that if it thinks fit to pursue this matter further, the whole subject should be referred to a Select Committee for investigation. That was the course adopted on former similar occasions when statements had been made to this House of conduct amounting to a contempt and breach of the privileges of this House, and I believe that is the only manner in which inquiries of this description can be satisfactorily conducted. I therefore move that further inquiry into the subject of the charge preferred by Abraham Rothwell against John Lord and Peter Johnson, contained in the petition of John Newall, be referred to a Select Committee, with the usual directions to examine witnesses as to the truth of such charge.

MR. HENLEY

I think the course suggested by the hon. and learned Gentleman is the most convenient one that can be adopted. It would certainly be very inconvenient to pursue the inquiry by this House.

MR. SERJEANT KINGLAKE

said that, as a matter of justice to the absent, a full inquiry should take place, and he thought the course proposed would be by far the most convenient.

MR. CHEETHAM

also supported the Motion.

MR. BOWYER

begged the Speaker to inform the House, whether the course which had been recommended by the Attorney General was or was not according to precedent? No doubt in ordinary criminal proceedings it was right that an accused person should be cautioned; but he contended that it had never been the practice of the House to caution persons called to its bar against replying to questions the answers to which might criminate themselves. It would be narrowing the powers and privileges of the House to subject it to the same strict rules which prevailed in the ordinary courts of justice.

MR. SPEAKER

stated that the course proposed by the Attorney General was in accordance with what took place upon a former occasion somewhat similar to the present.

MR. BOWYER

reminded the House, that in the case of the Duke of York certain persons called to the bar were undoubtedly asked questions the answers to which might have criminated themselves, and yet, if his memory served him, no caution was addressed to those witnesses how they replied to such questions. Home Tooke, also, when he was called to the bar, was asked whether he was the author of an alleged libel; but no caution was addressed to him upon that occasion. By an ingenious device, however, he certainly did baffle the House. He said, "Do you ask me that question as a party or as a witness?" The Speaker replied, "As a party;" upon which Home Tooke said, "Then, Sir, I plead 'not guilty,' and put myself upon my country." Thus he baffled the inquiry; but still no caution was addressed to him not to criminate himself. If the House were to adopt the proposition of the Attorney General, and hold itself bound by the same strict rules which prevailed in ordinary judicial proceedings, it would to a considerable extent narrow its powers and privileges; and to narrow the powers of that House, which was the great inquest of the nation, would be a very dangerous course, and one which ought not to be taken without the most mature deliberation. He would suggest, therefore, that an inquiry should be instituted into the precedents, and that in the meantime no step should be taken in the direction indicated by the Attorney General.

MR. CHEETHAM

asked, whether the witness who had left the bar was in custody?

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

said, he conceived that in all matters touching its privileges the House was not bound to abstain from instituting any examination which it might be pleased to undertake, or from requiring an answer to any question which it might think proper to put. But when there was an inquiry touching a matter which not only involved a breach of the privileges of the House, but which might also amount to a crime at common law, the House out of indulgence, as it were, and from compassionate consideration for the persons called to its bar—not recognizing any right or claim on their part—had been in the habit of telling them that they were under no obligation to reply to any questions the answer to which might criminate themselves. He entirely agreed with the hon. and learned Member (Mr. Bowyer), that the powers and prerogatives of that House should be preserved inviolate. With respect to the question of the hon. Member for Lancashire (Mr. Cheetham), it was unquestionably desirable that some steps should be taken to ensure that the person who had left the bar should attend before the Select Committee; but he was not prepared to say that the House was in a position at present to order him into custody.

MR. BOWYER rose to address the House, but he was received with cries of "Spoke," and

MR. SPEAKER

said, the hon. and learned Gentleman was not at liberty to make a second speech.

MR. BOWYER

then moved the adjournment of the House, with the view of putting himself in order; but

MR. SPEAKER

said, that the hon. and learned Gentleman, having already addressed the House, could not be permitted, according to the usage of the House, himself to move the adjournment.

Motion agreed to.

Select Committee appointed "to inquire into the matter of the Petition of John Newall, and to report their opinion thereupon to the House."

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That John Lord do attend the said Committee." (Mr. Attorney General.)

MR. CHEETHAM

said that, from information he had received, it appeared to be of the utmost importance that John Lord should be detained in custody.

MR. BOWYER

intimated his intention to move that the proceedings in this case should be entered upon the journals of the House, in order that it might not be drawn into a precedent, and that the powers of the House with respect to the examination of witnesses might not be narrowed.

MR. MALINS

thought it might be dangerous to allow Lord to go at large until the meeting of the Select Committee. He was to some extent implicated in the transaction of which complaint had been made to the House.

MR. CHEETHAM

then moved an Amendment, to leave out from the words "John Lord" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "be taken into the custody of the Serjeant-at-Arms attending this House."

Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."

SIR GEORGE GREY

doubted whether the statements before the House would justify it in ordering Lord into custody. That person himself had not pleaded guilty to a breach of the privileges of the House. It might, therefore, be desirable to call him again and interrogate him upon the allegation of the witness Abraham Rothwell, that he was the person who requested him to meet Johnson, and endeavoured to induce him to accept the bribe. If his answers were not satisfactory upon that point, there might possibly then be grounds for taking him into custody. At present there were none.

MR. FITZROY

said, that before they could agree to the Amendment, they must decide that John Lord had been guilty of a breach of privilege; otherwise they would be placed in the anomalous position of ordering a man into custody against whom there was no charge.

MR. HORSMAN

suggested that Lord should be heard again, and if, by his answers, it appeared that he had been the medium of communication between Johnson and Rothwell, he would be guilty of breach of privilege, and might be taken into custody.

MR. BUTT

said, that when a person was charged with a contempt in a court of law, the court examined him for the purpose of ascertaining whether he had been guilty of the contempt or not; and he apprehended that that House was armed with no higher powers than a court of law. The first thing that would be necessary was, to ascertain the fact, and if the hon. Member (Mr. Cheetham) would withdraw his Amendment, he would move that John Lord be recalled.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

reminded the House that this man was not a witness, but an accused party. Having determined that a Committee should be appointed, it would be rather inconsistent in the House now to take the inquiry into its own hands. The question was, whether the House had sufficient grounds for ordering the accused person into custody on the statement of Abraham Rothwell. That statement had been denied by the individual at the bar, and he did not think there was a necessity for any further measures at present besides ordering him to attend the Committee.

MR. CHEETHAM

said he was willing to withdraw his Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. SPEAKER

said, the question now before the House was, that John Lord attend before the Select Committee.

MR. BUTT moved that John Lord be recalled to the bar. Every step the House was then taking would be made a precedent which might affect the rights and privileges of the House. It was most important to maintain their rights to examine any person called to the bar, and as the hon. Member for Lancashire had expressed a desire to put a question, he should either be allowed to do so, or the House resolve not to do so out of consideration to the witness, at the same time securing its rights. He begged to move as an Amendment, that John Lord be recalled to the bar.

Amendment proposed, to leave out from the words "John Lord" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "be recalled to the bar."

MR. CHEETHAM

had been anxious to put a question which might criminate the individual; but, after the opinion of the Attorney General, he scarcely felt himself justified in so doing. There was a suspicion that Johnson had got out of the way, never to be seen again, and that Lord would follow a similar course.

MR. MALINS

thought it better, upon the whole, to let the man be examined before the Select Committee.

MR. ADAMS

said, that a grave charge of breach of the privileges of the House had been made against two persons; and it would be absurd if both these offenders got out of the way. Lord ought, he thought, to be again put to the bar; but, before the question was put to him, it would only be fair, either that he should hear the charge repeated by the man who made it, or else that the evidence against him should be read from the shorthand writer's notes.

MR. SERJEANT KINGLAKE

thought it inexpedient, as the House had appointed a Committee, to enter into a partial inquiry of the person accused, whether he were guilty or not.

MR. DILLWYN

asked the Attorney General how he proposed to secure the attendance of this witness? It struck him (Mr. Dillwyn) that he would not be forthcoming when the Committee met.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

said, he proposed to secure his attendance by the Order of the House to attend; and if he did not attend, he would be guilty of a breach of privilege, and be taken into custody. Hon. Members talked about sending the man to prison, but he (the Attorney General) wanted to know what offence had been proved against him, and in what manner, to justify the House in ordering him into custody?

MR. AYRTON

apprehended no man could be taken into custody by that House except for a breach of privilege; and before the House issued their warrant for taking him into custody, they must find him guilty of a breach of privilege.

MR. BOWYER

said, it was true a person who had not been shown to have committed an offence could not be taken into custody for a breach of privilege; but, if he was accused of a breach of privilege, there must be some means taken to secure his appearance before the Committee; otherwise he might not be forthcoming when he was wanted.

MR. SERJEANT O'BRIEN

said, the only object of recalling the man was to enable the hon. Member for Lancashire to put a question: but the hon. Gentleman now declined to put it, and there was therefore no use in recalling the man.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the question."

The House divided:—Ayes, 97; Noes 42: Majority, 55.

Original Question again proposed.

Another Amendment proposed, to add at the end of the Question the words, "upon Monday next, at One of the Clock."

Question proposed, "That those words be there added."

MR. STEUART

submitted that, as it was not at all unlikely that the witness would keep out of the way, means should be immediately taken to prevent his absconding.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

said, if the witness disobeyed the order of the House he would be guilty of contempt, and the House would order him into custody.

MR. BUTT

said, the Motion before the House was, that John Lord be ordered to attend the Committee on Monday next, but he (Mr. Butt) must remind the House that they had not yet nominated the Committee; and unless they at once agreed to suspend the Standing Orders, he apprehended they could not proceed to nominate the Committee that night. If they could that night suspend the Standing Orders he (Mr. Butt) should move that the Committee meet to-morrow. He thought if they gave the witness two days' liberty, after the warning which he would no doubt take from the discussion that night, the result would be that the whole of this proceeding before the House would be a mockery. He would, therefore, move that the Committee meet to-morrow at One o'clock, and that John Lord be ordered to attend at that hour.

MR. MAGUIRE

should like to know what was to prevent Lord from leaving London within a few hours by a railway train, and immediately afterwards sailing for America. The Attorney General would under those circumstances find it difficult to secure his attendance before the Committee.

MR. CRAUFURD

thought that, as Lord was an accomplice in the transaction in question, he must be looked upon in the light of an accused person, and not of a witness.

MR. MALINS

was strongly of opinion that Lord could not be taken into custody for contempt until he had been found guilty of that offence.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

said, in reply to the hon. Member for Youghal (Mr. Butt), that the House having agreed to refer the case under their notice to a Select Committee, it was not competent for them to enter upon any inquiry with respect to it themselves while that order remained. To the proposition of the hon. and learned Member that the Committee should sit that day at One o'clock he was disposed to assent, and he should, with that view, beg leave to withdraw his original Motion.

Amendment and Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

Ordered, That the Committee do consist of the following Members:—Mr. ATTORNEY GENERAL, Lord JOHN RUSSELL, Mr. HENLEY, Mr. ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND, Mr. HORSMAN, Mr. EDWARD EGERTON, Sir HENRY WILLOUGHBY, Mr. ROEBUCK, Mr. MACAULAY, and Mr. SERJEANT O'BRIEN: Power to send for persons, papers, and records; Five to be the quorum.

Ordered, That the Committee do meet this day at One of the clock.

Ordered, That John Lord do attend the Committee at its meeting at One of the clock this day.

Ordered, That Abraham Rothwell do attend the Committee at its meeting at One of the clock this day.

Ordered, That the Petition of John Newall, and the Evidence taken at the Bar, be referred to the Committee.