§ MR. R. HODGSONSir, I rise to put a question to the hon. and learned Attorney General of which I have given him notice. I wish, before doing so, however, to read a letter I have received from the Secretary to the Commission which sat to inquire into the existence of bribery at the last election for Berwick-upon-Tweed. I am informed that in strict accordance with the rules of the House I cannot do so unless I have the permission of the House. I do hope, however, that in a matter affecting my personal honour I shall not appeal to the House for that permission in vain.
§ MR. SPEAKERintimated that, on the statement of the hon. Member that the matter affected his personal honour, the House would permit the explanation to be made.
§ MR. R. HODGSONSir, it effects my character in this way. The Commission which sat to inquire into the existence of bribery at the last election for Berwick-upon-Tweed stated in their Report that I had been guilty of bribery.
§ COLONEL FRENCHI rise to order. I wish to know whether an hon. Gentleman has any right to complain in this manner with reference to any transaction which took place when he was not a Member of this House? A Member, no doubt, has such a right if the subject matter of complaint arises while he is so.
§ MR. SPEAKERIn strict order the hon. Member should be confined to the general rules of this House—he should be satisfied with asking his question. I told him so before I was aware that the matter involved in any respect his personal honour; hut when the hon. Member had made that statement I felt it was not for me further to interfere.
§ MR. R. HODGSONI am somewhat surprised that the hon. and gallant Member for Roscommon should interrupt my short statement. The question I shall conclude by asking is a repetition of that put one night last week by the hon. Member for Nottingham to the hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary of State for the Home Department, "Whether the law officers of the Crown have yet formed their judgment on the Evidence and Report submitted to Her Majesty by the Commission appointed to inquire into the existence of Bribery at the last Election for Berwick-upon-Tweed; and, if so, what steps the Government intend to take thereon?" Of that question I gave notice to the hon. and learned Gentleman, and, likewise, enclosed him a copy of the letter I received from the secretary to the Commission, with the speech I made on which that letter is founded. I trust, therefore, unless I greatly exceed the limits which the kindness the House has accorded to me, I may be permitted to give a few words of explanation. I was about to say when I was interrupted that undoubtedly the decision of the Commissioners was very much influenced by an inference they drew, and which, as stated in their Report, I will read to the House. But I must first of all explain that in my own evidence I admitted 1216 that previous to the last election for Berwick-upon-Tweed, before a vacancy had occurred, before I was a candidate, and before I thought of being one, I paid a person a sum of £65 for collecting a large amount of evidence in order to enable the sitting Members to defend their seats. That £65 has been held by the Commissioners as having been given with a view to a future election, and spent in bribery at that election at which I was a candidate. One of the reasons for which they came to that decision is undoubtedly the inference they had drawn from the circumstance that my collecting that evidence was not communicated either to the Conservative agent in London or at Berwick-upon-Tweed. On his first examination Mr. Rose, the Conservative agent in London, stated that he had not received that information. But Mr. Weatherhead, the Conservative agent at Berwick, reminded me of a circumstance which enabled me to bring to the recollection of Mr. Rose that I bad distinctly informed him that a large amount of evidence had been collected by me for the purpose of enabling the sitting Members to defend their scats; and Mr. Rose wrote a letter to the Commissioners stating that he had inaccurately given his evidence in the first instance. If the House will permit me I will read the letter Mr. Rose wrote to the Commissioners—
December 12, 1860.Dear Sir,—Since my evidence was given before the Commissioners on the Berwick Inquiry I have had my attention called by Mr. Richard Hodgson to a point upon which I fear I may have unintentionally committed an error. Had I been previously aware of the subjects upon which the Commissioners desired information from me I should have taken all the means in my power to refresh my memory, but as I had no knowledge beforehand of what the Commissioners intended to ask me I could only answer to the best of my recollection at the time. In reply to an inquiry whether I had ever heard from Mr. Hodgson that he had been engaged in getting up evidence in defence of the seats of Captain Gordon and Mr. Earle, I replied in the negative; and I further stated that I did not remember having had any communication with Mr. Hodgson on the subject of Berwick until within a few days of the close of the Session of 1859, though I added that, as Mr. Hodgson was frequently at our office upon other business, it was possible I might have seen him. This was strictly accurate as to my recollection at the time; but Mr. Hodgson has reminded me of an interview he had with me about the 8th or 9th of July, 1859, when passing through London on his way to the Continent, at which he mentioned that he had not been idle at Berwick, and that, in the event of the petition being tried, he should be in a position to supply important information as to cases of bribery on Mr. Marjoribank's side, and that he would place them at our command; 1217 and he requested us to write to him at Aix-la-Chapelle in case of need. And I find among my papers a memorandum of his address at that place, which I took down at the time in order that I might communicate with him if necessary. As I never had occasion to act upon his suggestion, and the petition was withdrawn shortly afterwards, the circumstance of this interview had escaped my recollection, and would probably never have again occurred to me but for Mr. Hodgson's reminder and my discovery of the address he gave me. I much regret that I should to any extent have misled the Commissioners in my statement, and I take the earliest opportunity of admitting the inaccuracy into which I have unintentionally fallen; and I shall feel obliged by your placing this letter before the Commissioners.I remain, dear Sir, yours faithfully,(Signed) PHILIP ROSE.C. E. Coleridge, Esq., Temple.With respect to that letter I have to say that, in addition to the statement to Mr. Rose that I had collected this evidence, I did place in Mr. Rose's hands the evidence I had collected—the cases, with the witnesses who were to support it. That evidence was sent down to Mr. Wetherhead at the time, and it was this circumstance that enabled him to communicate to me the fact which I brought to the recollection of Mr. Rose. The Commissioners, in their Report, at page 13, state—It is singular that if Mr. Hodgson really employed M'Gall to collect information, and received and digested evidence of the importance represented to us, he did not inform the Conservative agents of the task he had undertaken, and submit to them, from time to time, the proofs which he had accumulated against the petitioners.Upon that ground—on the ground that I had not communicated to the Conservative agents the information I had collected—the Commissioners came to a decision that the evidence I gave them was absolutely false, and reported that I was guilty of bribery. When the question was put the other night by the hon. Member for Nottingham to the Under Secretary for the Home Department I was a candidate for Tynemouth. There was a great ferment in the borough; much use was made of the question and answer, and it became absolutely necessary, in my opinion, that I should disabuse the public mind on that subject. I offered such explanations as I bad it in my power to give, and I did criticize the Report of the Commissioners at some length. I also sent a copy of my speech, as published, next day to the Commissioners and their Secretary. And now, having given these explanations to enable the House to understand the meaning of the letter I received from the Secretary to 1218 the Commissioners, I will read the letter itself. It is in these words—5, Mitre-court Chambers, April 25, 1861.My dear Mr. Hodgson,—I wrote to you yesterday, wishing not to lose a moment in explaining a most disagreeable matter.To my astonishment Mr. Vaughan informed me yesterday that he had never seen the letter referred to in your speech at Tynemouth, from Mr. Rose. I immediately saw Mr. Lushington on the subject, and he informed me that he never saw it. Mr. Barstowe says the same. I have been to Mr. Rose, who has shown me a copy of the letter, and I am quite sure I received it.It is dated December 12, and by a reference to other matters, I find that on both that and the following days I went to the committee room where the Commissioners sat. Mr. Vaughan and Mr. Lushington were alone there, Mr. Barstowe being absent on circuit.My invariable habit was to take down all letters I received, and to give them to the Commissioners there, stating who they came from. I have searched every paper and cannot find that letter, and I have, therefore, no doubt I took it to the committee room. Mr. Vaughan and Mr. Lushington have made a like search, and have not succeeded in finding it. I am quite convinced they never saw the letter, and equally convinced I took it down to the committee room, as was my invariable custom. It must somehow or other have been mislaid and overlooked, but how I cannot imagine.If it arose from any want of care on my part, I can only assure you that it was utterly unintentional, and must apologize to you for the wrong impression that has been caused.The Commissioners desire me to say that their Report as to this matter was founded on the evidence of yourself, Captain Gordon, Mr. Weather-head, and Mr. Rose, and had the letter alluded to been brought to their notice they would have felt it their duty to recall Mr. Rose.I trust you will make any use yon may think fit of this letter, either by publishing it or otherwise. "I remain very truly yours,(Signed) C. E. COLERIDGE.Sir, I thank the House for enabling me to make this explanation. I will not abuse their kindness by making any remarks on the letter.
§ MR. DISRAELIMr. Coleridge is the Secretary to the Commission.
§ MR. R. HODGSONThe question I have to ask is, Whether the law officers of the Crown have yet formed their judgment on the evidence and Report submitted to Her Majesty by the Commissioners appointed to inquire into the existence of bribery at the last election for Berwick-on-Tweed; and. if so, what steps the Government intend to take thereupon?
THE ATTORNEY GENERALSir, I had the honour this morning, a short time ago, to receive a letter and a handbill from the hon. Gentleman. I have been unable as yet to read either. If he deems 1219 it material that I should do so before answering his question he will probably repeat his question to-morrow; if he does not deem it material I am ready to give an answer now. But I must first explain to the hon. Member that the Government gives no directions upon this subject. If I prosecute him it will be on my own responsibility; and if I forbear to prosecute him and to try him at the next assizes it will be on the like responsibility. I will tell the hon. Gentleman the determination at which I have arrived. I have read the Report carefully, and had the evidence carefully analyzed. It appears to me that the conclusion that the hon. Member was guilty of bribery is founded, first, on the evidence of a man named M'Gall, alleged to have been an agent of the hon. Gentleman. M'Gall would be a necessary witness, but he has absconded. He is not forthcoming. I could not have him, and even if I did have him I could not make him speak. The next foundation for the conclusion of the Commissioners is the statement which the hon. Member himself made before them. Now, I abstain from stating my own opinion with regard to the accuracy of the conclusion to which the Commissioners have arrived; but I feel it my duty not to engage in any prosecution of this kind unless there is a certain expectation of obtaining a conviction, and, having no such expectation in the case of the hon. Member, I shall forbear to prosecute him.