HC Deb 08 May 1865 vol 178 cc1604-13

Order for Consideration of Report read.

Whereupon a Petition of George Morris Mitchell, for Consideration thereof, and for referring the case back to a Select Committee, was brought up, and read; to lie upon the Table.

MR. CHARLES FORSTER

said, that the result of the Report of the Select Committee to which the Order of the Day referred, was that thirteen gentlemen whose names were attached to the petitions had appeared before the Select Committee, and had stated that they had given no authority to any person to sign their names, which had been affixed to the petitions without their knowledge. The Committee, which consisted of the Members of the Public Petitions Committee, had had the benefit of the legal experience of the hon. and learned Member for Suffolk (Sir FitzRoy Kelly), and he felt sure he expressed the general feeling of the Committee in acknowledging the great assist- ance which his hon. and learned Friend had tendered them throughout the inquiry. It appeared from the evidence before the Committee that Mr. John Strutt, acting as sub-agent for Azeem Jah, employed other persons to get up petitions in support of the Prince's claims, and that George Morris Mitchell was employed to procure signatures in various localities, including Westminster, Pimlico, Hackney, and the City of London; and although there was no evidence implicating Mr. Strutt in any fraud, the Committee felt bound to reprobate the mode he adopted for remunerating the agents—namely, by paying the 1d. for every signature they procured, this was a direct incentive to fraud, and derogatory to the dignity of the House. Mitchell employed his clerk, whose name was Marshall, and another person named Whitehead. The expert whoso evidence was taken by the Committee, deposed that it was his conscientious belief, after examining the signatures and comparing them with the undoubted and undisputed writing of Mitchell, Marshall, and Whitehead, that Mitchell had written hundreds of the signatures, and that a certain number had been written by the other two. But the case against Mitchell did not rest there, because he had admitted that the first signature of the City of London Petition, that of Francis Robert Graham, was in his own handwriting, but he urged that he had Mr. Graham's authority for signing it. Mr. Graham, however, stated to the Committee that he gave no such authority, and up to the time of his appearing before the Committee did not know that his name was affixed. If Mr. Graham's evidence was to be believed—and he (Mr. Charles Forster) never heard evidence given which more bore the manner and semblance of truth—there was a clear case. independent of the evidence of the expert against Mitchell. The Committee, after a careful review of the whole circumstances, thought it their duty to report that a breach of privilege had been committed, and that Report was almost unanimously agreed to, the hon. Member opposite (Mr. Hennessy) being the only dissentient. The Committee having discharged its duty, it was now the duty of the House to decide what course should be taken. The right of petition was one of which the House ought to be specially careful. It seemed to him that this was an offence which struck at the root of a public right of the greatest importance, and one, therefore, which the House could not pass by without severe punishment. There were three modes in which the House had been accustomed to deal with offences of this kind. The culprit was either summoned to the Bar of the House and there reprimanded by the Speaker, which had been done in 1839, in the case of a Mr. Lovibond, who was found guilty of forging signatures to a petition for a Private Bill, and this was the mildest punishment inflicted; or, secondly, he was ordered into the custody of the Serjeant-at-Arms and brought to the Bar, as in 1825, when a Mr. Pilkington was charged with forging signatures to a petition respecting Roman Catholic relief; and in 1851, when John Strutt (the person concerned in the matter now before the House) and Charles Cunningham, who were found guilty of forging signatures to an Aylesbury election petition, and who, having expressed their contrition, were then discharged; or, thirdly, he was committed on the Report of the Committee to Newgate without being called before the House—a course which was pursued with Samuel Potts in the Hepworth case in 1840. [Mr. ROEBUCK: Was he heard before the Committee?] Yes; but he was committed to Newgate on the Report of the Select Committee, without being heard at the Bar of the House. He presumed the House would think this a case to be dealt with after the manner of the third precedent he had named. He could not think it a case in which the offenders should only be reprimanded at the Bar, for they had had every opportunity before the Select Committee to offer any excuses or explanations. The cases of Whitehead and Marshall might be favourably distinguished by the House from that of Mitchell, as they acted under his instructions. When they had purged their offence by submission and contrition, it would be for the House then to say whether it would extend to them any measure of mercy and indulgence. The House would thus show that there was a reality in those privileges which they held in trust for the public, and that they could not suffer that trust to be invaded and invalidated.

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 a breach of the privileges of this House."—(Mr. Charles Forster.)

MR. HENNESSY

said, that as the member of the Committee who had dis- sented from the Report, he wished to explain the reason of his dissent. He could not agree with the hon. Member for Walsall that Mitchell had been heard before the Committee in his own defence. It was not until the fourth day that Mitchell was before them, and he then, in answer to the Chairman, stated that he had only just seen the evidence. That was in consequence of a notice of Motion which he (Mr. Hennessy) had given that Mitchell should be furnished with a copy. The Chairman asked him whether he wished to see any particular evidence. He said he should like to see Mr. Strutts; in fact, that he should like to see it all. The whole of the evidence (fifty printed pages) was then given him, and he was told to retire and read it over, and if he desired to make any statement upon it that he could apply to be re-admitted. Then, Mr. Graham was called in, and cross-examined behind Mitchell's back, in his absence, although he desired to be confronted with him. This was a course which would not have been committed in any court of law. [Mr. FORSTER: We sent for him to come next day.] Yes, the next day Mitchell was to have been confronted with Graham, but then Graham was not forthcoming. Another point on which he dissented from the hon. Gentleman was that no questions had been put which would not have been put in a criminal court of justice. On the contrary, the vast majority of questions were such as no Judge would have allowed to be put. For instance, the hon. and learned Member for Suffolk, in Mitchell's absence, asked whether a certain signature looked like Mitchell's. The witness said, "I have seen two handwritings more unlike than this, but I would not swear to it," and then the hon. and learned Member put these questions— You are not asked to swear to it. Do attend to the form of the question. You have stated that you are well acquainted with the character of Mitchell's handwriting. Look carefully at that signature of the name of Hawes,' and state whether you have any belief, or can form any judgment, one way or the other, as to whether that is in Mitchell's handwriting. Do not appeal to anybody else, but exercise your own judgment. From your knowledge of the character of Mitchell's handwriting (and you have apparently some of his handwriting in your hand), do you see any resemblance so as to enable you to form a belief one way or the other?—Well, I should not like to swear. You are not sworn, you are only asked to speak to your actual belief. Do you see any sufficient resemblance to his handwriting to enable you to form a belief one way or the other?—I should not like to swear to it. I would not swear to it on any account. And the hon. and gallant Member for Ayrshire (Sir Robert Anstruther) put this question— But do you think that it is not so wholly dissimilar as to make you say, in your judgment, that it might not be written by him?—Decidedly Dot. The expert, Mr. Nethercliffe, was called in and said he found traces of Mitchell's handwriting in the signatures to the petitions, and on the strength of his evidence the Committee found that they were forgeries. After Mr. Nethercliffe's examination Mitchell was called in, and, in reply to questions put to him, stated that he had not before seen the report of the evidence given on the previous day, and that he was most anxious to get copies of the names which Mr. Nethercliffe had pointed to as being fictitious. The list of names was handed to him. [An hon. MEMBER: Who handed them to him?] He (Mr. Hennessy) put them into Mitchell's hand, and he said it was necessary for his defence that he should have an opportunity of calling the persons whose names were on the list. The room was then cleared, and a Motion was proposed declaring that the Committee had heard enough of evidence. To that Motion he (Mr. Hennessy) moved an Amendment declaring that Mitchell should have an opportunity of calling the persons whose names were on the list, and whom he wished to examine. His Amendment was lost by a majority of two, four voting against and two for it; and a subsequent Amendment for delaying the drawing up of the Report was lost by a similar majority. On the day the Committee met to consider their Report Mitchell was in attendance, with the names of the witnesses whom he wished to examine; but the Committee declined to hear further evidence. He had never seen Mitchell 'till he came before the Committee for examination, and since then he had not seen him till to-day, when Mitchell came to him in the lobby and handed him a list of names, saying he was prepared to prove by witnesses that in some of the cases referred to by Mr. Nethercliffe the parties had authorized him to sign for them, and that in others the petitioners had signed their own names. He added that he had had permission to sign for Graham. The man whom it was proposed to send to Newgate had been denied the opportunity of defending himself, and had been condemned upon unsworn evidence taken behind his back, and in a manner wholly contrary to the privileges and practice of the courts of criminal law of this country. Having served on the Committee, he was loath to move any Amendment himself, but he hoped the House would not agree to the Motion of his hon. Friend the Member for Walsall.

MR. ROEBUCK

said, that in his reading of history he had come across a decision very like the present. In 1793 there were jurors appointed by the Committee of Public Safety, and they were told they need not hear evidence, as they were already sufficiently informed in the case which were to come before them. They did so, and people were executed under their decisions. If the statement of the hon. Member who had just spoken was correct, that was precisely what this Committee had done. He did not know one word about this matter, But the House were exercising a great penal power, and he advised them not to take one step without carefully considering to what it would lead. The accused said, and he was supported by a Member of that House that he had been denied the opportunity of being heard. The hon. Member for Walsall (Mr. Charles Forster) said the man had had every opportunity of being heard. He (Mr. Roebuck) wanted to know which of these statements was right. He was there a most helpless individual. He was at the mercy of the hon. Member for Walsall and the hon. Member behind him. One Gentleman declared distinctly that every opportunity had been given to the man of being heard, and the other declared as distinctly that the Committee decided that he should not be heard. They sat in that House as the representatives of a great body of people, whose pride was the impartiality of their Courts of Justice; they were about to exercise one the privileges of a court of justice, and send a man to prison; and were they not bound to take the same course of proceeding that a court of justice followed? He unhesitatingly appealed to the House to say in this matter that the House was not sufficiently informed.

SIR FITZROY KELLY

said, he had, at the instance of several hon. Members, and also as a public duty, consented to servo on this Committee, and he must beg therefore to say a few words, The allega- tion was that in the great number of petitions, in eighteen from the metropolis and double or treble that number from other parts of the country, which had been presented in favour of the claims of Prince Azeem Jah, many of the signatures were fictitious. Inquiring as to the way in which these petitions got into the hands of the Members by whom they were presented, they found that Mr. Strutt, an agent of the prince, had been sending a number of petitions out to different parts of the country for signatures, but unfortunately he had also employed one or two persons to obtain signatures in the metropolis, one of those persons being Mr. Mitchell, who was formerly a servant of that House. As he (Sir FitzRoy Kelly) had submitted a Motion in support of the case of Prince Azeem Jah, it would of course have given him the greatest satisfaction if it had turned out that the charge of fabricating signatures was groundless; but in the course of a careful and impartial investigation it was clear to anyone who used his eyes that a number of the signatures to the petitions presented from the metropolis were in one handwriting. A great many of the signatures appeared to be in the handwriting of one person, and the resemblance to Mr. Mitchell's handwriting was such, that no Member of the Committee could for a moment have entertained the slightest doubt that that person was the fabricator of those signatures. Every opportunity had been afforded to Mitchell to make any statement in defence, but his answers to the Committee, from first to last, were evasive in the extreme, and on the last occasion when his attention was directed to the fact that there were nine or ten signatures to a particular petition which were represented to be in his handwriting, and he was asked whether he had anything to say, he was silent for a while, and ultimately gave some evasive answer. The Committee then reported that signatures to the amount of some hundreds had been annexed to the petition, and having compared them with the handwriting of Mitchell, they had no doubt that great numbers of those signatures were by his hand. He had gone into the Committee with an earnest desire to discharge his duty to the best of his ability, and he believed that their proceedings had throughout been conducted with great fairness and patience. He should at present be glad to find the House disposed to take a mild and merciful view of the case; but he felt bound to support the Motion of his hon. Friend.

LORD ROBERT CECIL

said, he trusted that those hon. Members who had shown impatience during this discussion would bear in mind that they were dealing, not with an abstract question, but with a question affecting the liberty of a fellow subject. The question was, whether they should send a man to Newgate, and it would be a disgrace to the House of Commons if such a question were not entertained in the most patient and impartial temper. His hon. and learned Friend who had just sat down (Sir FitzRoy Kelly) stated that Mitchell had ample opportunity of giving evidence before the Committee. But that was the very point on which the House had to decide; and any one who read the evidence must, as it seemed to him, arrive at the opposite conclusion. Mitchell was examined on the last day the Committee sat, and he then declared that he desired two things—first, that he should have an opportunity of cross-examining his accuser; and, secondly, that he should be allowed to produce witnesses to show that the evidence of Mr. Nethercliffe was erroneous. One would naturally imagine that such a request would at once be complied with; but the answer of the Committee was that "they had already evidence enough to report to the House the result of the inquiry." Under these circumstances he could not vote for depriving that man of his liberty; and he begged to move, as an Amendment, that the Report be referred back to the same Committee.

Amendment proposed, To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "the Report of the Committee be re-committed to the said Committee,"—(Lord Robert Cecil,) —instead thereof.

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

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

said, that it would be as inexpedient for the House hastily to adopt the course suggested by the noble Lord as that proposed by his hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, because if there was one thing more desirable than another it was that the confidence of the House should not be unduly withheld from Committees to whom it referred inquiries of this description. The observation of the noble Lord led him to the conclusion that he had not very long or very fully or completely perused the evidence taken by this Committee, because there appeared to be parts of it to which his attention had not yet been directed. The proposition which he intended to make to the House was that they should not at that moment come to any conclusion, but that the debate should be adjourned for such a time as would enable hon. Members who desired to do justice both to the individual accused and to the Committee of that House to read the evidence and judge for themselves. It was, however, only due to the Committee that he should say that, although he had not been able to examine the evidence so carefully and deliberately as he should desire, he had, during the progress of the debate, discovered on the face of it some things which had not yet been mentioned, and which convinced him that the House would act both unwisely and unjustly if it was to assume that the Committee had dealt with Mr. Mitchell in the manner which had been represented by those who we're only imperfectly acquainted with what had passed. He found from Mr. Mitchell's own statement that on the day on which his hon. Friend the Member for Walsall presented to the House the Report of the Committee on Public Petitions his attention was fully directed to his own position in regard to the matter. Before the Select Committee was appointed, he called upon the hon. Member for Walsall, and represented that Mr. Strutt had said that he had got into a mess about the petitions, and had asked him to take the onus entirely upon himself. The hon. Gentleman, as the House would imagine, replied that he could only deal with the matter as a Member of that House, and as the House directed. It was, therefore, clear that Mr. Mitchell knew what was his position, and how he would or might be affected by the inquiry. His friends also urged him to appear. [Mr. HENNESSY: What friends?] Mr. Wyatt, his attorney, stated that on the day on which Mitchell was served with the Order of the House he advised him to attend the Committee. Mitchell was served with the Order of the House at the place of residence known to his employer; hut he was not there, and there could be no doubt that from the time that the Committee sat till the day on which he was brought before them he was purposely keeping out of the way. The House had been led to suppose that there was no direct evidence against him; but more than one gentleman whose signature had been forged stated, some of them in the presence of Mr. Mitchell, that their names had been appended without their authority to petitions which had passed through his hands. Mitchell did not attempt to deny this, but said that he had employed clerks under him, and denied that he had himself forged any signatures. He was told that he should have the fullest opportunity of producing those clerks, but he said that it was the affair of the Committee, and appeared to think that he had better do nothing unless ordered. The hon. and learned Gentleman concluded by moving that the debate should be adjourned until to-morrow.

MR. W. O. STANLEY

, as a Member of the Committee, said, that Mitchell had been convicted of forging signatures to petitions from Pimlico, from Westminster, and from another place, the evidence as to which he made no attempt to disprove.

Debate adjourned till To-morrow. Petition of George Morris Mitchell to be printed. [App. 1.]