§ MR. WHALLEYrose to move for a
Copy of all Applications made to the Secretary of State for the Home Department or to the Solicitor of the Treasury as to providing the means for the defendant in the case of The Queen v. Castro, alias Tichborne to bring forward witnesses in his defence, and for such information as to the evidence that will be brought forward in support of the prosecution as the defendant would have been entitled to receive if he had been committed for trial by any other process than that of the Order of a Judge at Nisi Prius; together with the Replies that have been made to such Applications.847 The hon. Gentleman said, the Correspondence he asked for consisted of four or five letters written by himself to the Solicitor to the Treasury, arising out of certain questions which had been put as to the notorious Tichborne case. He might say that the application was made at the suggestion of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Memorials from various towns had been signed by a great number of persons, the object of the memorials being that Parliament should afford to this defendant—Tichborne—the same information as to the existing charges against him as would have been afforded to a man who had been committed to prison by the order of a magistrate. Application had also been made that certain provision should be made out of the public funds for the production of this man's witnesses and for the conduct of his defence. In consequence of the statement made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, to the effect that the funds contributed by the public might be expected to provide the means of Tichborne's defence, the only alternative left was to "stump" the country. ["Oh!"] Yes; this unfortunate man was obliged to "stump" the country, or to appeal to the country—whichever hon. Gentlemen liked best—in order that, as an Englishman, he might have what every Englishman had a right to have, but which this Englishman had not obtained—a fair trial. He was glad to hear that the hon. and learned Member for Taunton (Mr. James) was instructed—["Oh, oh!"]—or at least was prepared to reply to his (Mr. Whalley's) observations. He charged the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Taunton, and he charged every other Member of that House—["Oh!"]—yes, he charged the hon. and learned Member for Taunton, and he charged every other Member of the House—["Order!"]—he charged them all with this—that they should vote upon this Motion without having made up their minds upon the merits of this case, so far as they were called upon, on the authority of the Attorney General, to provide him with money in the public name to prosecute this man Tichborne, De Castro, or whoever he might be. It was in that spirit he (Mr. Whalley) had "stumped" the country. [Ironical cheers.] Yes, and he would go from door to door, from one end of the country to the other, and beg money for this man 848 so as to ensure him a fair trial. Well, with all the eloquence of the hon. and learned Member for Taunton, and with all the dissent of the House, nothing should prevent him from trying to ensure this unfortunate and ill-used man—[Laughter]—yes, this ill-used and badly-treated man—a fair trial. The Attorney General, in a manner altogether unprecedented, had come to that House charged with this responsibility—that his own character as a barrister was involved in the issue of this trial, and he had in a manner, pledged his own personal veracity and opinion, quite out of the course of ordinary practice, that the man was not Tichborne, but was "this, that, and the other." The Attorney General came to that House, and told them they were to provide him with whatever sum he wished—probably over £100,000—in order to carry on the prosecution. Now, having no greater interest in the matter than that he (Mr. Whalley) possessed property close by the Tichborne estates in Hampshire, he was not satisfied with this state of things. The House was, to a certain extent, voluntarily committed to the prosecution of this man. He pledged himself in the most solemn manner that there was not a shadow of doubt in his mind—that he was as satisfied as that he was a man who had an existence, that this man—this man who was to be prosecuted by the Attorney General, and at the expense of the country—was the Sir Roger Tichborne whom he professed to be. Now, he asked any Member of that House, whether the information with respect to this man which was before the country—and he was now speaking of the result of personal investigation—did not consist of a month's speech from the Attorney General, filled in by certain facts with respect to certain tattoo marks? ["Question!"] He was keeping to the Question, and he now asked whether the refusal of the letters of which he now asked a copy was not an abandonment—a virtual abandonment of that tattoo evidence. ["No, no!"] Oh, yes, yes. ["No, no!" and"Order!"] But I say it is. [An hon. MEMBER: Surely this is not the Question.] What he wanted to demonstrate was that either the "tattoo marks" evidence was conclusive, or, if not, that the whole affair disclosed one of the most frightful and abominable conspiracies which had ever taken place in this, or, perhaps, in any other country.
§ MR. MUNDELLArose to Order, and asked whether that House should he occupied in going into the merits of the Tichborne case?
§ MR. SPEAKERsaid, the Question was one entirely for the House, and not for the Chair.
§ MR. WHALLEYsaid, the Attorney General had asked the House of Commons for money to carry on the prosecution against this man who was called De Castro, but who was really Sir Roger Tichborne. [Laughter.] Well, why did the Attorney General prosecute him for perjury and forgery?
MR. BRUCEI rise to Order. Not only do I think the conduct of the hon. Gentleman is exceedingly indecorous—whether this person is what he describes himself to be or not—but what I want to say is, that over and over again the hon. Gentleman has stated what is not the fact—what, at least, he ought to know is not the fact—namely, that the House of Commons is asked, at the instance of the Attorney General, to find money for retaining the Attorney General for the conduct of the prosecution. Now, the Attorney General has nothing whatever to do with the institution of the prosecution. This is a prosecution instituted upon a report of a learned Judge, and, as a matter of course, as the hon. Member ought to know, the Treasury are bound to prosecute
§ MR. WHALLEYI rise to Order.
MR. BRUCEI do not think—and I believe the House will agree with me—that it is right to allow the hon. Member for Peterborough to pursue a course of mis-statements. I cannot think that the hon. Gentleman is by any means in Order in the observations he has made and is making.
§ MR. SPEAKERI am appealed to on a point of Order. I cannot say that the hon. Member is out of Order in the observations he has made. As to the propriety of them that is a question for the House, and not for the Chair.
§ MR. WHALLEYSir, that observation is more painful to me than anything which could be said by the bitterest opponent.
§ MR. R. N. FOWLERcalled the attention of the Speaker to the fact that there were not 40 Members present.
§ Notice taken that 40 Members were not present; House counted, and 40 Members being found present,
§ MR. WHALLEYresumed, and said, he had been made the subject of the most unmannerly and violent attack and interruption by the Secretary for the Home Department that had ever been witnessed. The right hon. Gentleman had charged him with making mis-statements; but he had not made any misstatement, and he regarded that charge as an unworthy manoeuvre. ["Order!"] It was not worthy of the position or personal character of the right hon. Gentleman, when he was labouring and striving to make himself intelligible, to rise and interrupt him, under the plea of Order, when there was no breach of Order. And the hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. R. N. Fowler), had tried to count him out. The anomaly of this case was, that they were called upon to provide funds for the prosecution of this man by the Government, acting on the advice of the Attorney General, who was engaged on the other side at the trial before Chief Justice Bovill.
§ MR. WHALLEYsaid, that he had to urge in justification of his statement that they had never heard that the Attorney General had released himself from his official position as Law Adviser of the Government. He maintained that the Government were bound to make some further inquiry into the case, in order to elicit more than they knew from the Attorney General. There was no doubt in his mind that the Claimant really was the man he professed to be. The Claimant was utterly penniless and destitute, and the Government should see that the witnesses necessary for his defence were brought forward. He (Mr. Whalley) felt pain in being obliged to take part in certain proceedings connected with the man; but there was no sacrifice or effort that he was not ready to make in order to secure a fair trial for him.
§ MR. STACPOOLEseconded the Motion.
§
Motion made, and Question proposed,
That there be laid before this House, a Copy of all Applications made to the Secretary of State for the Home Department or to the Solicitor of the Treasury as to providing the means for the
851
defendant in the case of The Queen v. Castro alias Tichborne to bring forward witnesses in his defence, and for such information as to the evidence that will be brought forward in support of the prosecution as the defendant would have been entitled to receive if he had been committed for trial by any other process than that of the Order of a Judge at Nisi Prius; together with the Replies that have been made to such Applications."—(Mr. Whalley.)
§ MR. JAMESdid not rise for a moment to say whether or not it would be right in the Government to grant that Return. He understood the hon. Member for Peterborough wished his own letter to lie on the Table. Neither would he express any opinion as to the guilt or innocence of the person who was now charged and who was awaiting his trial. It was, he thought, most unbecoming in a Member of that House to rise in his place and say he believed that a person who was awaiting his trial was guilty, and it was equally unbecoming in him to say he believed he was innocent. Whilst he abstained from offering any opinion upon the question itself, he must say that there was a view of the question that should be taken of the matter even by private Members of the House of Commons. Could it be deemed right in any Member of that House to wander about the country in carriages which were provided as a money speculation, and to stand beside a man who had admitted that he could not answer questions put, upon the ground that in doing so he might criminate himself, and to stand beside him while he used indecent epithets in reference to Her Majesty's Attorney General, and in reference to a jury of his country having been bribed to deliver a verdict that they had given upon their oaths? The House could not take proceedings upon such facts; they could only regret what had taken place. But when it was sought to make the House the arena for continuing such performances; when they were asked to sit by and listen to opinions expressed as to a prisoner's guilt or innocence; and when it was sought to do for a particular person who had been committed for trial that which never had been and could not be done in the House of Commons for anyone else, simply because that person had friends in that House, then he ventured to say, with all submission, that he thought the time had come when the House ought to protest against being made parties to such a proceeding. Not 852 that they could prevent the hon. Member for Peterborough by the Rules of the House, or by those rules of taste and propriety which were still more binding on some men, from making such a Motion. Yet they could, by their silence and by their words show to the public that they took no part in that which he said out-of-doors was a mountebank performance, and in-doors was a nuisance and an insult alike to the House and the country.
MR. BRUCEsaid, the hon. Member for Peterborough asked the Government to produce certain documents. As far as the Home Office was concerned those documents consisted of two Memorials, one from Southampton, and he was sorry to say, the other from West Hartlepool, requesting the Government to act in accordance with the recommendations given by the hon. Member for Peterborough. He was much mistaken if he did not recognize in those Memorials the hand—[An hon. MEMBER: The Roman hand]—of that hon. Member. At any rate, their language closely resembled the language which he had heard from him on many occasions. But he believed there would be no advantage to the public or to the course of justice in producing those documents. They all emanated more or less from the hon. Gentleman, who must be well acquainted with them. For himself, he could not see how they could possibly subserve the interests of justice. He quite agreed with the hon. and learned Member for Taunton (Mr. James) as to the conduct of the hon. Member for Peterborough in discussing that question, and coming forward to state his views as to the innocence or guilt of a person whose innocence or guilt was about to be submitted to a legal tribunal. Not only was that conduct unusual, it was also highly reprehensible. He could have wished that it had been in the Speaker's power to prevent what he thought was a scandal to the House. The hon. Member said it was his duty—if he took a certain view of the conduct of the Tichborne claimant, and believed in his innocence—to endeavour to prevent the spending of public money on his trial. But he (Mr. Bruce) begged the House to remember that the prosecution was instituted on the express recommendation of the learned Judge who heard the case, and who committed that person for trial. Therefore, it was 853 clearly the duty of the Government to undertake the prosecution. Nor was it true that prosecutions on the part of the Government were invariably instituted upon the recommendation of the Law Officers of the Crown. The Government might, if it thought fit, have recourse to the advice of its Law Officers; but in the majority of instances those prosecutions were instituted without any reference to them. In the present case that was eminently the fact; because the Attorney General, in consequence of the part he had taken at the previous trial, had thrown upon the Home Office jointly with the Treasury the duty and responsibility of collecting the requisite evidence. The hon. Gentleman (Mr. Whalley) hoped that all that was usual would be done in order to secure a fair trial. He could assure him that everything which was usually done in such cases would be done in the present one. The person about to be prosecuted would stand in no better and in no worse position than if he had been committed for trial in the ordinary way. But the hon. Member went further, and asked that in that case, above all other cases, the Treasury should find the money not only for the prosecution, but also for the defence. For such a course there was no precedent, and he was at a loss to discover anything in the peculiar circumstances of that case to call upon the Government to create such a precedent. He must, therefore, decline to accede to the Motion.
§ MR. WHALLEYexplained, in reply, that his connection with the county of Hampshire first led to his taking an interest in this case, and his opinion was that it had not been fairly tried. He assured the hon. and learned Member for Taunton (Mr. James) that he was only a "mountebank" in the sense of going to certain parts of the country; but he must remind him, that while mountebanks went about the country for money for their own purposes, he was driven to the course he was pursuing by the refusal of the Government to give the assistance which was absolutely necessary in order that this man should have a fair trial. He had never before witnessed such a degree of anxiety, earnestness, and even enthusiasm as was shown by the public in this respect.
§ Question put, and negatived.