§ MR. T. DUNCOMBEsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department—or perhaps the noble Lord the Foreign Secretary would have the goodness to answer—What instructions were given to Sir Richard Mayne, in reference to the alleged manufacture of Notes in this Country in the name of Hungary, and what course Sir Richard Mayne took upon those instructions; by what authority Sir Richard Mayne required the Messrs. Day to suspend the manufacture of the Notes; and by whom the expenses of the proceedings taken are to be defrayed? It appeared that early in February an application was made at the Foreign Office to the noble Lord the Member for the City of London by the Austrian Government, or by the representative of Austria in this country to stop the manufacture of notes which was said to be going on at the establishment of the Messrs. Day. The noble Lord entertained the question, and took, as he told them the other day, the opinion of the law officers of the Crown. The matter having been referred to the Home Department, the Home Secretary also took the opinion of the law officers of the Crown. He (Mr. Duncombe) thought the noble Lord then went out of his way in telling the House that in the opinion of the law officers of the Crown the manufacture of those notes was illegal. He (Mr. Duncombe) had often heard questions asked in that House to which the Government answered—"We took the opinion of the law officers of the Crown, and we are 1976 to be guided by it." But if the Government were asked to lay that opinion upon the table, they always said, "Oh, no it is only to guide us." The effect of the statement made by the noble Lord must be to prejudice the proceedings at present pending in a court of justice. If the law officers of the Crown had given their opinion that the manufacture of those notes was illegal, he submitted the noble Lord ought to lay that opinion on the table of the House pending the proceedings which were being taken. The law officers of the Crown having given their opinion on a case submitted to them nothing appeared to have been done for nearly three weeks. In the meantime a communication was made early in February to Messrs. Day's place by Sir Richard Mayne, the Commissioner of Police, requiring Messrs. Day to suspend the manufacture of those notes. The Messrs. Day were pursuing their trade legally, as he believed it would turn out, and that trade was interrupted by the communication of Sir Richard Mayne. Notes had been ordered by M. Kossuth for his own purposes, but what those purposes were they did not know. Austria might have made representations to the noble Lord to stay the issue of those notes; but if he (Mr. Duncombe) was rightly informed, a large number of the notes was ordered after the visit paid by Sir Richard Mayne to Messrs. Day's, and an additional number of hands were taken on. He was told that among those hands was a detective employed by Sir Richard Mayne. This detective obtained a print of one of the notes; but it appeared that Messrs. Day had subsequently looked over their papers and found all their prints were intact. Now, he wished to know where this note came from, because they knew that it had been produced before the Court of Chancery. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman (Sir George Lewis) would be able to explain how this note came to be produced before the Court of Chancery. There ought to be no equivocation shown in this matter, because if there was anything more repugnant to the feelings of the people of this country than another it was the spy system. He wished, therefore, to know what were the instructions given to Sir Richard Mayne, and by what authority he required the manufacture of the notes to be suspended? Another question was by whom the expenses incurred in procuring information and paying for that espionage 1977 were to be defrayed? for it was notorious that the Government had obtained the clue they wanted by bribery. If our Government found the money, then this country was paying for the spy system of Austria. If Austria found it then our police were in the pay of Austria. If Her Majesty's Government had used what was called the secret service money for this purpose, how would the people of England like their taxes to be spent in that way? He said this was disgraceful conduct on the part of the Government. Although he believed the noble Lord had pro-Austrian sympathies, he could not have thought he Would allow such a visit to be paid by the police to the shop of respectable tradesmen, and their business to be thus arbitrarily interrupted; still less could be have supposed the noble Lord would have given the opinion he had done pending the litigation in that case, which would be argued in a few days, when it was most probable that the injunction obtained against the Messrs. Day would be withdrawn.
SIR GEORGE LEWISSir, I think there is no doubt that my hon. Friend, if he believed that any grievance existed in this matter, has exercised a constitutional privilege in bringing the subject under the consideration of the House on the Motion for going into Committee of Supply; but I trust, after the simple explanation which I have it in my power to give, that the House will be satisfied that no grievance exists. My attention was called by Sir Richard Mayne to the existence of certain notes printed in the Hungarian language about the 5th of February, and I may say that Sir Richard Mayne, myself, and every other person in the Home Office were equally ignorant of the Hungarian language. It was, however, a small printed note, purporting to be signed by "Kossuth Louis." It appeared that it was printed by Mr. Day, the lithographer, and at my suggestion Sir Richard Mayne put himself into communication with Mr. Day, and addressed to him the following letter, dated February 11:—
Sir Richard Mayne requests Mr. Day will be so good as to call here to-morrow at 12 o'clock, or as soon after as may be convenient.Metropolitan Police Office, Feb. 11.In consequence of that letter an interview took place between Mr. Day and Sir Richard Mayne; but I do not understand that Sir Richard Mayne made any demand on Mr. Day of the nature my hon. Friend states. On the 13th of February Sir 1978 Richard Mayne addressed a second letter to Mr. Day, which I apprehend contains the substance of the intimation that my hon. Friend alluded to. This is the whole of the correspondence addressed by Sir Richard Mayne to Mr. Day:—Sir,—I request you will detain for the present all the Hungarian notes on your premises, as you told me yesterday you would do if a notice to that effect were given to you.I hope to see you to-morrow with reference to the inquiry on which you are to give me information.
§ "I am, your obedient servant,
§ "Feb. 13.
§ "RICHARD MAYNE."
§ MR. T. DUNCOMBEDid you give Sir Richard Mayne no instructions?
SIR GEORGE LEWISI gave him those instructions. I wish to say that Sir Richard Mayne was acting entirely under my instructions. Well, no further interview took place between Mr. Day and Sir Richard Mayne, and nothing further passed in writing. That is the whole ex-tent of the transaction between Sir Richard Mayne and Mr. Day. With regard to any detective, I am not aware of any person having been employed by Sir Richard Mayne in the manner my hon. Friend describes. No expense has been incurred by the Government, and they are no parties to the proceedings now pending before the Court of Chancery.
§ MR. BRIGHTI think my hon. Friend gave the right hon. Gentleman an opportunity to make a rather fuller statement than he has done, and I am sorry he has not availed himself of it. The right hon. Gentleman mentioned—and it was the first fact he stated—that Sir Richard Mayne called his attention to the matter of these notes. I should like very much to know who first called Sir Richard Mayne's attention to them. Was it the noble Lord at the head of the Foreign Office, or the right hon. Gentleman himself, to whom the noble Lord deputed the subject? Because it makes some difference in the case whether Sir Richard Mayne did this of his own mere motion or from the orders of a superior Department. The right hon. Gentleman did not tell us exactly how the matter stood in this respect. It appears that Sir Richard Mayne had become possessed of one of these notes. The right hon. Gentleman has not informed us how he became possessed of it. It is not to be supposed, I presume, that the ex-Governor of Hungary sent him a copy, nor is it asserted that Mr. Day sent him one. Somebody must have been in Mr. Day's works and 1979 abstracted a note to make use of it—in fact, to furnish it to Sir Richard Mayne. It is stated, further, that a police-officer obtained employment with Mr. Day as a labourer at the press, and that he took one of the notes belonging to his employer—an act of larceny, I imagine, though I hardly know what the lawyers would call it. Certainly it would not be a very honest act. If he did not do that, it is said that he must have used some paper of his own, making an impression of the note upon it, and furnishing it to Sir Richard Mayne. If that be true—and the House will, I am sure, think it a little important to know whether it is or not—we arrive at this position—that in A matter which does not in the least concern the security of the Crown or Government of England, but which does in some degree, it may be, affect the interest of a foreign Government, the head of the Metropolitan police undertakes to introduce into the workshop of a tradesman in this City one of his detectives in the garb of an honest, frank, labourer at a printing-press, in order that he may there discover what the tradesman is doing, and take from his premises a note which may be used in a court of justice, not only against the ex-Governor of Hungary, whose name is attached to it, but against Mr. Day himself. That is contrary to all the opinions prevailing in the country with respect to the powers of the police. Whatever use may be made of such a proceeding for the purposes of our own Government—and I do not think it would be very desirable even in that case—there can be no question that it would be very wrong for the Home Secretary to sanction such a proceeding on the part of the police, for the purposes of the Austrian or any other foreign Government. Of course, as regards the main question, that will be settled by the Court to which it has been referred. I do not mean to go into it; because what that Court decides we can be well content to agree to; but I think the right hon. Gentleman owes it to the House to be a little more explicit. He ought to tell us whether the Home Office, acting for the Foreign Office, and Sir Richard Mayne acting for the Home Office, or for the Austrian Government, is to be permitted to introduce into the shop of a London tradesman a detective in the garb of an honest labourer, who may give evidence whereon a foreign Government can pursue an exile who has taken up his residence among us. 1980 I shall say no more about that; but the right hon. Gentleman ought to make an explicit statement, because, Sir, if any part of this transaction is left unexplained it will create a very strong and most unfavourable suspicion against the conduct of the Government throughout the entire country.
MR. HENLEYBefore the right hon. Gentleman answers that appeal allow me to put one further question on a point he has not touched upon. As I understand the action from his description of what has taken place, an interview passes and a letter passes between Sir Richard Mayne and the tradesman employed in this act; and the right hon. Gentleman left the matter in this way without giving us any further explanation as to the imtermediate stage of the matter. He says that Sir Richard Mayne gave this tradesman notice not to suffer any of that property to go from his premises, and there the right hon. Gentleman left it. Now I think it is right to know whether the police of this country are to give notice to a tradesman not to suffer property that may be in the ordinary way of business in his possession to go off his premises, although no criminal charge has been alleged against that tradesman. The right hon. Gentleman says that, and there he left it. Is this tradesman now under notice from Sir Richard Mayne, or is he not? The right hon. Gentleman shakes his head, so I suppose he is not; but he did not inform the House. Of course, in a question of doubtful circumstances it is perfectly justifiable for the police, if they think a crime is about to be committed, to take means to prevent it. That is a totally different matter, and I think it is not lawful to leave a tradesman under such a notice when the matter to be dealt with appears to be a question to be decided by a civil court on a motion for an injunction, and not by a criminal court. When the right hon. Gentleman answers the question I should be glad to know whether Sir Richard Mayne has withdrawn his notice.
SIR GEORGE LEWISPerhaps the House will grant me permission to reply to the questions that have been put to me by the hon. Member for Birmingham (Mr. Bright) and the right hon. Gentleman who has just sat down. I can state in the most confident manner my belief—I think I may say my knowledge, but certainly my belief—that no improper agent such as the hon. Member for Birmingham de- 1981 scribes was induced by corruption to give information. I know nothing whatever of any such means having been used. The reason I interfered in the first instance was this—the House must be aware that it is contrary to the law of the country to counterfeit the money of any foreign Government. Not being, as I said before, master of the Hungarian language, I could not tell the exact nature of this note without obtaining a translation of it. Afterwards, when we got a translation of this note, and saw that it did not purport to be a counterfeit of any Austrian money, but that the fabrication was one of money to be used by a new Government to be constituted, we saw that if the matter was a crime at all it was one of a different character. We took the opinion of the law officers of the Crown, That opinion was, of course, confidential, given for the guidance of the Government, and it is not for me to state it; but, in consequence of the opinion of the law officers, the Government decided not to institute any proceedings against Mr. Day; and he was informed—certainly when he came to Sir R, Mayne he must have understood—that this notice Was only for the moment, and until further information had been obtained; and he could not for twenty-four hours have remained under the impression that the police would lay any embargo on his property.
§ MR. BRIGHTThe right hon. Gentleman has not explained how he came by the note.