HC Deb 02 June 1865 vol 179 cc1230-48

Order for Consideration of Report read.

MR. HENNESSY

presented a petition from Mr. G. M. Mitchell on this subject, and moved that it he read by the Clerk at the table.

Whereupon a Petition of George Morris Mitchell, praying for further inquiry before another Committee, composed of Members not having previously sat upon this inquiry, brought up, and read.

MR. CHARLES FORSTER

said, the House would remember that the Committee which had inquired into this subject reported that George Morris Mitchell, together with Powell Marshall and Henry Whitehead, had been guilty of a breach of the privileges of this House. Mitchell having presented a petition asking for a further opportunity of defence, the House directed that the Report should be re-committed, and that this opportunity should be afforded him. In the course of the former inquiry the expert delivered in a list of forged names. The Committee had summoned before them the whole number of twenty-seven persons named in the list referred to in Mitchell's petition. Of these nineteen attended and stated that they were in total ignorance of the petition and gave no authority for their signatures. The expert stated that he saw no reason to alter or modify his evidence. But, independently of the expert, a clear breach of privilege was established by the evidence of Mr. Graham. Mitchell acknowledged that Mr. Graham's signature was in his handwriting, but said he wrote it by that gentleman's authority. Mr. Graham, however denied that he had ever given such authority, and that up to the time of his appearance before the Committee, he was in ignorance that his name had been signed to the petition; and his evidence, so far from being shaken, was strengthened when confronted with Mitchell. Throughout the whole inquiry Mitchell received every indulgence. They granted adjournments to him on two separate occasions, in order that he might bring up witnesses; in one case they procured him a Speaker's summons; and in another they allowed him the expenses of a witness from Manchester. But the result of the fresh inquiry and the examination of witnesses was that a clear case was established against the three persons charged with this breach of privilege. By a majority of seven to one the Committee resolved that they— See no reason to alter or qualify their report already made to the House, and are satisfied upon the whole of the evidence laid before them, and upon their own renewed and repeated personal inspection of the several documents and signatures forming part of that evidence, that the said George Morris Mitchell has wilfully affixed a great number of fictitious signatures to several of the petitions in question, without the knowledge or authority of the persons purporting to have signed those petitions; and that the said George Morris Mitchell, as your Committee have before reported, has therein been guilty of a breach of the privileges of this House. The Committee also resolved as to Powell Marshall and Henry Whitehead, that they saw no reason to alter or qualify their Re- port respecting those persons. The Committee had not the power of examining witnesses on oath, and had not the assistance of counsel, but they had endeavoured to find the facts to the best of their ability. It was now for the House to determine what further steps were necessary in order to protect its own privileges. The Committee had no wish to press on these persons with undue severity, but they felt that, if this House was not to be trifled with in the matter of petitions, such a breach of privilege as had been committed here could not be allowed to remain unpunished. In accordance with precedent the course for the House to pursue would, he believed, be to accept the finding of the Committee and direct that Mr. Speaker should issue his warrant for the committal of George Morris Mitchell to Newgate, and that Powell Marshall and Henry Whitehead should be committed to the custody of the Sergeant-at-Arms. The hon. Member concluded with his Motion.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That George Morris Mitchell, having fabricated signatures to several Petitions presented to this House, and having knowingly procured other fabricated signatures to such Petitions, has been guilty of Contempt and a Breach of the Privileges of this House."—(Mr. Charles Forster.)

MR. HENNESSY

said, he should have anticipated that the Attorney General would have favoured the House with his opinion on a question of such importance. It was remarkable that Mr. Strutt, who got up the petitions, paying a penny per head for each signature, had never been mentioned by the hon. Member. Mr. Strutt not only paid for the signatures, but was fully cognizant of the fact that the signatures were fictitious. Those petitions were presented to the House by the instigation of Strutt, and he knew they were forged, for a letter was produced from him before the Committee, in which he expressed, some time before the petitions were presented, his doubts as to the genuineness of the signatures. And yet his name was altogether omitted by the hon. Member for Walsall. Mitchell all along expressed his desire to cross-examine Mr. Strutt, but in the second Committee he was again refused the opportunity. Again and again he had expressed a wish to ask Mr. Strutt some questions, but he was not allowed. Hon. Members would see that by turning to the evidence, and at question 2,136 they would see how the hon. Member for Finsbury (Mr. Cox) was stopped by the Committee when he was proceeding to put some questions to Mr. Strutt on Mitchell's behalf. But it was not only the noble Lord the Member for Stamford (Lord Robert Cecil) who said that the Committee was condemned; the Attorney General said the report of the petitioner must not be sent back, as it would be a reflection on the Committee. [The ATTORNEY GENERAL: I never said anything of the kind.] Then the hon. and learned Gentleman had been hardly treated, for all the daily press concurred in attributing expressions to him to that effect. When the last Report of the Committee was presented and the hon. Member for Walsall proposed to commit Mitchell to Newgate, the House appeared unanimously of opinion that they had been too hasty in their decision, and especially in not allowing Mitchell an opportunity of cross-examining Mr. Strutt. They ordered the Committee to re-consider their proceedings; but notwithstanding that, the Committee still refused to allow Mitchell an opportunity of cross-examining Mr. Strutt. When the Committee met again Mr. Netherclift, the expert, was recalled and admitted that he had made a mistake about one signature and that he was puzzled about another—curious admissions for an expert to make. It was no wonder that he was puzzled, for he had never seen Mitchell write, and he only judged by comparison of handwriting. He was handed certain receipts and other documents, and told that they were in Mitchell's handwriting, and from looking at them he formed his judgment as to the forged signatures. But Mitchell produced three or four witnesses, who had known Mitchell for twenty years and who had often seen him write, and they swore most positively that the signatures were not in his handwriting. Mitchell himself supported this evidence by handing in a statutory declaration denying what he was charged with. The only evidence on the other side was that of Netherclift, who admitted that he had been mistaken and puzzled. As to the receipt which was said to be in Mitchell's handwriting, it was proved satisfactorily that it was not. The man who actually signed it was produced, and Mitchell's medical man, who told the Committee that at that time Mitchell had broken his finger, and was totally unable to sign his name. The hon. Member for Finsbury in the Committee had moved a Resolution, which was a great deal more in accordance with the justice of the case than that of the hon. Member opposite, to the effect that though if they had been sitting as magistrates they might have been justified in committing Mitchell for trial, yet acting both as Judge and jury they were not justified in returning a verdict of guilty. He himself had refused to attend the second Committee, because on the previous occasion most of the hon. Members of the Committee had expressed their opinion of Mitchell's guilt, and he thought that it was rather hard upon the man that he should be re-tried by persons who had already pronounced a verdict. Under all the circumstancs, seeing that Mitchell had not been allowed to cross-examine Mr. Strutt, that most of the evidence had been taken behind his back, that many questions had been asked which would never be allowed in a Court of Justice, and that none of these charges could ever have been proved in a Court of Justice, he hoped the House would not press its privileges to the length which was proposed by the hon. Member opposite. The man who paid for the signatures and who distributed among the Members petitions to which were affixed signatures which he knew were fictitious, he was passed over, and his agent was to be punished by that House. He trusted the House would not take that unfortunate course.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

said, there was no class of cases with which it was more painful to deal than such as were exemplified in the present instance. But the House owed an imperative duty to itself and to its Committees not to be deterred by any disinclination from asserting and vindicating its rights and privileges. The very tone adopted by the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite (Mr. Hennessy) seemed to make it more incumbent on the House, unless it believed that its Committee had exceeded their duty, to mark its sense of the practices into which the Committee was appointed to inquire. Every one knew that no Committee except an Election Committee had power to administer oaths; but that was no reason why the House should abdicate its own powers. Of course the examination before a Committee was not and could not be conducted with the technical strictness of a Court of Law; but still the House was able to judge of the real merits of the case presented to it, and if they saw the substance of a case made out it was bound to vindicate its privileges. Then, what was the case before the House? He dis- sented from the statement that, by referring the matter back to the same Committee, the House intended in the slightest degree to reflect upon the manner in which the Committee had discharged their duty. There was no distrust of the Committee, and there could be none. Upon that Committee was the hon. and learned Member for Suffolk (Sir FitzRoy Kelly) who was the earnest advocate of the claims of Azeem Jah, but who, of course, would not consent to throw his shield over any improper practices. The other Members of the Committee took great pains to perform their duty, and as they found that Mitchell was only trifling and fencing with them, and feeling satisfied that they had ample and sufficient evidence, they closed their proceedings, and presented the results of their inquiry to the House. It was now for the House to consider what its duty was, comparing the points upon which there were doubts with those parts of the case which were undoubtedly proved. Mr. Mitchell, who from his antecedents as a servant of that House, was well acquainted with its practices and proceedings in the matter of petitions, undertook, for pay, the getting up of a considerable number of petitions concerning the case of Azeem Jah. That there had been systematic fraud and forgery in the getting up of those petitions was proved beyond all doubt. Many persons proved that their names had been forged, and at the last inquiry Mr. Mitchell cited four persons, who were not involved in the charges, to support his statements. Those persons, however, all proved that their names had been forged; and although it was not proved who was the forger, yet, as the petitions came through Mr. Mitchell and his associates, Marshall and Whitehead, if they were not parties to the systematic and audacious fraud, Mitchell might have assisted the Committee in finding out the agents who had deceived him. There was also a Mr. Graham, at whose office Mitchell had been in the habit of calling, who declared that his signature had been forged. He was examined in the absence of Mitchell in the first instance; but upon the last inquiry the two were confronted, and Mr. Graham again stated, and professed his readiness to swear in a court of justice, that he had not signed his name to the petition, and that he had given no authority to any one to do so for him. Mitchell did not deny that the signature was not Mr. Graham's, but declared that he had authority from that gentleman to sign his name to the petition. The question resolved itself into one of authority; and Mr. Graham, upon the second inquiry, repeated, in a manner which added to his credibility, that he had given no authority. He further said, if he had been asked to sign the petition he would have done so. But, in fact, the parties engaged in these transactions were so reckless that they would not take the trouble of asking persons to sign, even where there was no prospect of refusal. The Committee had unanimously decided that the signature in that case was forged, and he could not see any reason why the House should be dissatisfied with their opinion. The fact that the name of Graham was written by Mitchell was not in controversy, because that it was so was admitted by Mr. Mitchell himself. Other names, too, were proved to be forgeries, because the persons themselves, on being summoned, stated that they had neither signed the petitions nor authorized any one else to sign for them. The question, then, was, by whom were the signatures forged? No doubt Mr. Mitchell brought forward his accomplices to prove that the forged signatures were not in his handwriting; but they did not in any way show by whom they were written, as they might undoubtedly have done if they had chosen. The Committee had, moreover, the evidence of their own eyes, which he believed, in cases of this kind, went further than anything else with Judges and juries. Under these circumstances, he could not see why the House should hesitate to act upon the Report of the Committee. Now, one word as to Mr. Strutt. He had taken a part in this affair, which he (the Attorney General) should be very sorry to speak of with approbation; and, indeed, he was not quite sure whether he had not committed a breach of the privileges of the House, but he thought that the Committee had taken the safer course in holding that no actual breach of privilege had been proved against him. It seemed that he had written a letter expressing his doubt of the genuineness of these petitions which he afterwards presented; and no doubt his conduct was highly censurable. The guilt or innocence of Mitchell, however, was not at all involved in the case of Mr. Strutt; it was not pretended that Mr. Strutt forged the petitions or had any control over them after they were in Mitchell's hands. On the first occasion Mitchell cross-examined Strutt; but on the second occasion he said that he did not want to trouble him to come. [Mr. HENNESSY: Subsequently he asked for his attendance.] He said he wanted to ask him a question, but the question could not have had anything to do with his defence, or he would not have stated before, that he did not want to trouble him to come. He could not, therefore, see any reason why the House should refuse to act upon the Report of the Committee.

MR. COX

was anxious to say that each Member of the Committee had been most desirous to do justice to all the persons involved in the inquiry, and if he had had the misfortune to differ with the rest of the Committee, it was not because they were less anxious than himself to arrive at a proper decision. There could not be the slightest doubt that many of the signatures attached to the petitions were forgeries, but that fact in itself would not be sufficient to convict a man in a Court of Justice. For that reason he had thought it his duty to move in the Committee the Resolution referred to by the hon. Member for the King's County. There was, undoubtedly, strong primâ facie evidence to show that one or other of the parties concerned forged signatures to the petitions, and the only question was as to who was guilty. When the Committee made their first Report he was inclined to believe in the guilt of George Morris Mitchell; but as they proceeded with the evidence he came to believe that Mr. Powell Marshall had, more probably, committed the forgeries. The writing of both those persons was so much alike that it was impossible to perceive any difference in them. Mr. Netherclift himself had to acknowledge that he had made a mistake upon this point. The handwritings having so much resemblance Mr. Netherclift picked out signatures which, in his judgment, he said, were written by Mr. Mitchell. In that opinion he did not concur, for he thought that they were written by Mr. Marshall, and therefore, feeling himself in the position of a juryman, he could not concur in convicting Mitchell. He believed it would be better if in cases of this kind the House would not constitute itself into a Court of Justice and send a man to Newgate, where he might be kept four or five weeks, but would commit him for trial to the Old Bailey, where if forgery were proved, he would receive a lengthened imprisonment, which he would have richly deserved. It was clearly proved before the Committee that these petitions were delivered in blank to those persons in the commencement of the month of January, and that they remained in their possession only two or three days. After the signatures had been attached to them they were delivered to Mr. Strutt. The petitions were not given to Members for presentation till the beginning of March. Would any jury convict of forgery where the document had been three months out of the possession of the party charged, where there was no evidence to show how many signatures were attached to the petition when it left his hands, and how many it bore when placed by Strutt in the hands of Members?

SIR JAMES FERGUSSON

There was evidence as to the number of signatures paid for.

MR. COX

But there was no evidence to show the exact number the petitions bore. Two petitions were divided into three. The Attorney General laid great stress on the case of Graham, who stated that he had neither signed the petition nor authorized his signature to be appended. But another witness called to corroborate that statement gave his evidence in a manner which satisfied his (Mr. Cox's) mind that authority had been given for Graham's name to be signed, although he had forgotten all about it. He would not, by a Resolution of that House, deprive a man of his liberty when a jury would certainly not return a verdict of guilty against him. He did not think that either a Committee upstairs or the Bar of that House was the proper place to try a man for forgery. In his view there was sufficient primâ facie proof against these men to induce the House to send them for trial before a jury, and, if they were found guilty, adequate punishment would be awarded to them; but if they were guilty, and the House sent them to Newgate for four or five weeks, would that be a punishment commensurate with their offence, or befitting the dignity of that House?

SIR JAMES FERGUSSON

said, that having served upon this Committee from the commencement, he must say that he thought that no Member of it considered the duty of attending a welcome one. The inquiry was extremely tedious and difficult, and one which no one would go through but from a sense of duty. The Members of the Committee had done their duty to the best of their ability, and he was only sorry some Gentlemen were not satisfied with the result. No one could accuse the hon. Member for Finsbury (Mr. Cox) of unfairness in what he had said in the Committee; but it was to be regretted that he could not bring his mind to a conclusion which had proved irresistible to every other Member of the Committee, including the hon. and learned Member for East Suffolk (Sir FitzRoy Kelly) who had had so much experience in legal proceedings. The hon. Member (Mr. Cox), however, was not present during all the time, and the rest of the Committee could not get him to fix his attention sufficiently on the signatures and to examine them for himself. Nothing more was necessary to convince any one than to look closely at the petitions—all other evidence might have been dispensed with—but the hon. Gentleman was by no means disposed to apply that test. The fact that some questions had not been allowed to be put arose from this, that the Committee were anxious that the parties should not criminate themselves. He had great respect for the industry and ability of the hon. and learned Member for the King's County (Mr. Hennessy), but he must say that in this matter he had not acted fairly towards the Committee nor judiciously with respect to his duty in that House. The hon. Member on the first occasion attended off and on; but when the Committee reassembled he declined to attend; and surely it was neither fair nor usual for an hon. Member who had abstained from attending a Committee of which he was a Member, afterwards, when the Report was brought up, to attack it. The hon. Member had attempted to show that Strutt was equally guilty with Mitchell; there was nothing which could lead the Committee to think so, unless his conduct in hawking about the paper to procure petitions. But the hon. Member for Finsbury (Mr. Cox) said that Strutt was responsible for these petitions; though the fact was that Strutt declined to have anything to do with them, because he saw the signatures to be fictitious, and Mitchell sent them, with a note in his own handwriting, to Members to present them. When Strutt was before the Committee he was not as a witness against Mitchell, but was called for the purpose of showing that Westley Richards was not a sub-agent, and Mitchell declined to have Strutt called. No evidence affecting Mitchell was taken behind his back since the Committee resumed its inquiry. It was said that some Members of the Committee assumed Mitchell's guilt; but the hon. Member for the King's County (Mr. Hennessy) ought to refer to the part of the evidence in which that appeared. However, he (Sir James Fergusson) had reasons before to complain of the hon. Member for not giving the true substance of the references which he made. In no Court of Justice would Mitchell have had the same opportunities for making his defence as he had on the Committee. There were repeated meetings to allow him to produce any one he named as a witness, and that he might not have a shadow of an allegation that he was not given every opportunity. The entire case would have been a trumpery one if the privileges of the House were not concerned in it; but, as a Member of the Committee, he had not the smallest doubt that justice had been done.

MR. BENTINCK

regretted that the subject did not attract more attention, and was not discussed with fuller benches. From what he had heard of it he ventured to suggest that there were two morals to be drawn from it. The first was the uncertainty which existed in respect of the petitions. In this instance the fictitious signatures had been discovered; but he ventured to think that this was the exception, and that, in ninety-nine cases out of 100, fictitious signatures to petitions were not discovered. That moral might be drawn in connection with the practice of inundating the House of Commons with petitions. Another and more important moral was to be drawn from the manner in which the House dealt with such questions as this. It appeared to him that the Committee had pursued a course which was not uncommon in that House—they had dealt with the small fry and allowed the big fish to escape. His hon. Friend (Sir James Fergusson) had told them that there was nothing to implicate Mr. Strutt with misdeeds or immoral practices. According to his hon. Friend, there was nothing in that gentleman's conduct which the Committee had been called upon to investigate. Now, he had taken the trouble to refer to the Order of Reference, from which it appeared that it had been quite within the province of the Committee to deal with Mr. Strutt's proceedings. The reference was— That a Select Committee be appointed to inquire into the circumstances under which, and the parties by whom, the signatures were annexed to the petitions relating to the case of Prince Azeem Jah during the present Session. The order did not say a word about "fictitious signatures." It was one directing the Committee to inquire into the circum- stances under which the signatures had been obtained. Well, it had come out that Mr. Strutt had obtained signatures at 1d. a head; and he put it to the House whether, virtually, there was much difference between forging names to a petition and procuring them at 1d. ahead. Why, when the Committee were dealing with Mitchell did they not deal with Strutt? [Mr. CHARLES FORSTER: We censured him.] Oh! they drew a distinction between the man who forged names and the man who paid a penny a head for them. No doubt the Committee were right; but he confessed that his powers of discrimination were not I equal to drawing such a distinction. He must say he thought the proceedings of the Committee were characterized by a want of energy and determination. The hon. Member for Finsbury told them that, as a Member of the Committee, he had felt he was acting as a juryman; and the Attorney General said the Committee had occupied the position of both Judge and jury. It was to be remembered that jurymen were sworn. What did a Judge of one of our courts do before submitting a case to the jury? In the first place he took care that the examination was conducted according to the laws of evidence, and did not permit that kind of desultory cross-questioning which took place before a Committee; and he also took care that the prisoner had the full benefit of counsel and of every available means for his defence. Now, he had it on the high authority of the hon. Member for the King's County (Mr. Hennessy) that Mr. Mitchell at the last stage of the proceedings appealed to the Committee to be allowed to cross-examine Mr. Strutt, who might fairly be looked upon as standing in the position of an accomplice. A Court of Justice would either have given Mr. Mitchell an opportunity of cross-examining Mr. Strutt, or would probably have placed him at the Bar, instead of in the witness-box. But the Committee did neither the one nor the other. They neither allowed Mr. Mitchell to cross-examine Mr. Strutt, nor did they—as they were bound to do by the Order of Reference—inquire into Mr. Strutt's conduct as to the mode of obtaining signatures. All that he wanted—and he believed the feeling was one in which every Englishman would join—was that they should have a certainty that the man who was about to be punished had been found guilty upon sufficient evidence, and that that evidence had been given before a com- petent tribunal. He contended that neither the tribunal nor the evidence was what it ought to have been, and that the system of cross-examining before Committees reduced the whole thing to a broad farce, and took away all semblance of a Court of Justice. They were about to condemn a man to imprisonment upon evidence not taken upon oath; and if it should come out hereafter that that evidence was untrue, or that direct falsehoods had been asserted, what would be their position? They would have no means of punishing those on whose false evidence they had condemned a man to durance for so many weeks. Was that, he would not say a legal, but a rational mode of proceeding? It might have been sanctioned by the long usage of that House, but it was, nevertheless, at direct variance with justice and common sense. But he maintained, further, that such a course of proceeding would prejudice the position and reputation of the House in the eyes of the country; for, assuming that they consigned a man to durance on a criminal charge, and it subsequently appeared that he had been condemned upon false evidence, they must either admit they had been guilty of an act of gross injustice, or that their whole system was founded upon error. A good many years ago he had the honour to be a Member of what was called a Privilege Committee, which was nominated in consequence of an article that appeared in The Times newspaper. That article reflected in the strongest possible manner upon the character of gentlemen belonging to the sister country—not individually, but collectively. He did not now remember the exact words; but if he had known that that debate was coming on he would have taken care to have had the Report of that Committee in his hand, as he thought it would have strongly supported the view he was attempting to enforce. However, the result of that Committee, which consisted of some twelve or thirteen Members, was that the statement made in The Times was held to be a breach of privilege against that House, as impugning the character of a large number of its Members connected with Ireland, and asserting that they were all corrupt. The charges then investigated turned in many cases upon facts with respect to which they had only answers of "Yes" and "No" for many weeks; and the result was that upon both sides they had pretty nearly the same number of witnesses, the one set declaring a thing was black, and the other that it wag white. It was in human nature that if there were not certain penalties before men's minds when giving evidence in these cases they would be drawn into a process of evasion, even though they might have no wilful intention to create a false impression.

MR. BONHAM-CARTER

, as a Member of the Committee, said, that no doubt there was great difficulty in conducting an investigation of that kind in a Committee exactly as a case would be conducted in a Court of Law; but the Committee had desired to give the fairest trial to those who came before them in the character of accused persons, and no bench of magistrates could have taken more care than they had shown in order that there should be nothing done to prejudice the prisoners. The hon. Member for the King's County (Mr. Hennessy) had stated that Mr. Netherclift, the expert, felt himself puzzled; but why? It turned out that Mitchell employed Marshall to draw cheques in his name and sign receipts for him, and there were certain signatures about which it was difficult to say who was the writer. But there were hundreds of signatures as to which there was not the slightest doubt, and could not be, and which were the signatures of Mitchell and Marshall. He entirely agreed in the remarks made by the hon. Member for Ayr (Sir James Fergusson) with regard to the hon. Member for the King's County. The latter hon. Gentleman had commenced by attacking the Committee on Petitions; but if he had only attended a judicial Committee, as he ought to have done, from the beginning to the end, he might at any part of the examination have made the proposals which now came too late from him. Mitchell was told, on the very first day of the proceedings before the Committee, that he might hand in a list of the witnesses he desired should be produced, that he was at liberty to adduce any evidence he might think proper in his own defence, but he declined to avail himself of that permission.

Motion agreed to.

On Question, that Mr. Speaker do issue his warrant for the committal of George Morris Mitchell to Newgate,

MR. HENNESSY

said, the hon. and gallant Member near him (Sir James Fergusson) had indulged in some personal remarks upon his conduct; but he should not occupy the time of the House by answering them. Notwithstanding the hon. and gallant Member had boasted of his knowledge of law acquired by serving on courts martial, he had put two most improper questions to Mr. Strutt during that person's examination. The questions were in reference to the assumed identity of Mitchell's handwriting with the signatures, and were leading questions strongly tending to extract replies likely to criminate Mitchell. What would be the opinion of the country upon this subject when it heard that the House was going to send a man to gaol upon insufficient evidence? When a somewhat similar case occurred a few years back the person committed to gaol applied for a writ of habeas corpus, and, on the question being argued, Lord Chief Justice Campbell said that the House of Commons was guilty of a gross injustice and a violation of the liberty of the subject when it committed a man to prison, as a writ of habeas corpus was of no avail in such a case. Therefore the House should be careful not to exercise its power of imprisonment except upon the most undoubted proof of the guilt of the accused person. The Attorney General had likened the Committee to a jury; but the jury in this case had not arrived at a unanimous decision, as two of the Members had entirely dissented from the verdict of the majority. In fact, the whole proceeding was contrary to the spirit of the law, and was not likely to meet with the approval or the respect of the country. It would have been far better if the Committee had made a Report to the House on the subject, and that then the House had instituted an inquiry into the conduct of every person implicated in the transaction. When he heard that the matter was to be sent back to the Committee for re-consideration, he declined to serve any longer upon it, as he felt sure that the decision was already determined upon. The real delinquent, Mr. Strutt, had escaped scot free, while the unfortunate man Mitchell had been selected as the scapegoat.

SIR JAMES FERGUSSON

said, the hon. and learned Gentleman had not quoted his remarks fairly. He did not say that he was a master of the law of evidence, but said he had done his best to make himself master of the facts. The hon. and learned Gentleman had committed another mistake in having said that Mr. Strutt had uttered the petitions knowing them to be forged. Now, the evidence showed that the officials had received them from the hands of Mitchell himself. The hon. Member for Norfolk admitted that he had not read the evidence. The hon. and learned Member for the King's County said that two Members of the Committee differed from the others, but only one of them had heard the evidence.

MR. BENTINCK

said, the hon. Baronet had construed his admission that he had not heard the evidence into an admission that he was not qualified to give an opinion. What he meant to say was, that if he had read the evidence he should probably have had more to say on the subject. What he contended was, that the proceedings of the Committee were of a most desultory and illegal character. The proceedings of all Committees of the House were of that character. He must enter his strong protest, as a Member of that House, against such an act as they were about to perpetrate—that of consigning a man to prison on evidence not sworn, and on proceedings so irregular and at variance with the practice of the Courts of Justice. If his hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Henncssy) divided, as a protest against such a national scandal, he should go into the lobby with him.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

said, he could not allow to pass unnoticed the very extraordinary language which the House had just heard. The hon. Member's views of law were very extraordinary, if he imagined that the privileges of that branch of the Legislature were not as well established by the law of the land as any other right in the country. It was the law of the land which said that that House had privileges, and the House had its own customary methods of investigating questions which concerned its own duties, in support of its authority, even to the extent of interfering with the liberty of the subject. The custom or law of Parliament was as much law as any other part, even the most sacred part, of the law of the land.

Motion made, and Question put, "That George Morris Mitchell be, for his said offence, committed to Her Majesty's Gaol of Newgate; and that Mr. Speaker do issue his Warrants accordingly."

The House divided:—Ayes 41; Noes 7: Majority 34.

MR. CHARLES FORSTER

then moved that Powell Marshall, having been concerned with George Morris Mitchell in fabricating signatures to petitions, had been guilty of a contempt and breach of the privileges of the House, and that he be committed to the custody of the Sergeant at Arms.

MR. HENNESSY

said, that when the hon. Member rose he thought he was going to move that the men whom they tried behind their backs and convicted behind their backs should be hung. The Attorney General might say this was legal; but was it just? These two persons were tried and convicted by a majority of the Committee, and they were now to be taken into custody. He should like to know if they were to be committed to Newgate. These men had been tried privately; the public and the press were not admitted. They were frequently compelled to leave the room, and were condemned without being heard. He considered the whole proceedings discreditable to Parliament and to the country.

MR. COX

said, he had voted with the minority in the Committee on all occasions, because he did not feel in his conscience that evidence was produced to enable him to find a verdict of guilty against these persons. It was now proposed that one of them should be committed to the custody of the Sergeant at Arms—which meant that he was to be kept, boarded, and lodged for the remainder of the Session at the expense of the country, and yet he believed that that one was far more guilty than the man who had already been condemned. These proceedings would not tend to elevate the character of the House, for this House was dealing with men so poor that they had not the means of bringing before the Committee either solicitor or counsel for their defence. These persons were not present during the inquiry into their conduct, there was nothing proved against them, and now they were ordered to be taken into custody. He maintained that the House had no more right than any other Court of Law to inflict punishment until guilt was properly proved, and where there was a doubt the prisoners ought to have the benefit of it.

MR. AYRTON

wished the Chairman of the Committee to explain clearly and distinctly the relative degree of guilt of these parties. He did not intend to vote on the question, and thought the Government ought to enjoy the honour and privilege of sending these men to prison. He trusted the rest of the House would take no part in it.

MR. CHARLES FORSTER

said, the Committee regarded Mitchell as the chief offender, and the others as acting under his direction. As to the statement that they were directed to leave the room, they had the fullest opportunity of examining the witnesses and putting any questions to them that they might think desirable.

MR. DIGBY SEYMOUR

said, the hon. Member had not answered the question asked. He had been asked to state distinctly the difference between the assumed guilt of the two men. In his opinion this proceeding was most discreditable; a private tribunal was opposed to all the principles of English justice, and any man who was tried behind his back should have his sympathy; and he could not understand why, having vindicated the dignity of the House with regard to one supposed offender, they should think it necessary to sacrifice these two also. The hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets was, in his opinion, entitled to a distinct answer to his question—upon what grounds the Chairman of the Committee drew a distinction between the person who was to be committed to Newgate and those who were to be consigned to the custody of the Sergeant at Arms.

MR. CHARLES FORSTER

said, that he had already stated most distinctly that the Committee were of opinion that Mitchell was the principal offender, and that the others acted under his instructions.

Motion made, and Question put, That Powell Marshall and Henry Whitehead, having, in consort with George Morris Mitchell, fabricated signatures to several Petitions presented to this House, have been guilty of Contempt and a Breach of the Privileges of this House."—(Mr. Charles Forster.)

The House divided:— Ayes 39; Noes 5: Majority 34.

MR. HENNESSY

wanted to know what was to be done with the men when they were committed to the custody of the Sergeant at Arms. A precisely similar punishment had been some years ago inflicted, by order of the House, upon Mr. Strutt, who had been committed to the: custody of the Sergeant at Arms for I forging signatures to a petition. That was the first offence of that man; and when he committed a second offence he was let off without any punishment.

MR. CHARLES FORSTER

observed, that it depended upon the discretion of the House how long the men would be kept in custody.

SIR GEORGE GREY

said, that this was the mildest form of proceeding that the House could adopt. If these persons admitted their offence and petitioned the House for their release, the House would no doubt not be indisposed to give, according to its usual practice, a merciful consideration to their petition. If, however, they asserted that they had committed no offence against the privileges of the House, and set themselves in opposition to it, they would remain in custody.

Ordered, That the said Powell Marshall and Henry Whitehead be, for their said offence, severally committed to the custody of the Serjeant at Arms attending this House; and that Mr. Speaker do issue his Warrants accordingly.—(Mr. Charles Forster.)