HC Deb 23 May 1873 vol 216 cc408-10
MR. WHALLEY

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether he will lay on the Table of the House a Copy of the Application to the Treasury for such aid to the Defendant in the Tichborne Prosecution as he would have been legally entitled to receive if he had been committed for trial after examination before a magistrate, together with the Reply declining to afford such aid; and to call attention to the subject? He said, the course which had been pursued in this case was utterly unprecedented; and he wished to call attention to the subject now, because hon. Gentlemen were just about to separate for the Whitsuntide holidays, and during those holidays there might be a complete and irretrievable collapse in the case, so far as the Claimant's power of defending himself was concerned. That unfortunate gentleman would certainly be unable to continue his defence, and bring up the necessary witnesses, unless he received some assistance. The prosecution of the Claimant was ordered by the Lord Chief Justice of the Court of Common Pleas simply and solely upon the evidence as to the tattoo marks. Already the Claimant had been compelled by the Government to spend something like £3,000, which the instincts and feelings of the people of this country had led them to contribute, and the unfortunate man had been made the victim of extraordinary efforts on the part of the prosecution to keep him in prison. It was upon the tattoo marks alone that he was prosecuted; but where were these marks?

MR. SPEAKER

said, he must remind the hon. Gentleman that he was out of Order in going into the merits of the case. If the hon. Gentleman would confine himself to the expenses incurred in consequence of the prosecution of this person he would be quite in Order.

MR. WHALLEY

said, he had further Questions to put to the right hon. Gentleman. One was, Whether the Government would afford such aid to the defendant as he would have been legally entitled to receive if he had been committed for trial before a magistrate? Another was, Whether, in the event of any Member of the House making a further appeal to the people to renew their subscriptions in favour of the person under trial, he would prosecute such Member for contempt of Court? and the last Question was, Whether the right hon. Gentleman had taken any steps to discover the authorship of certain letters which the Lord Chief Justice had pointed out to be forged and fabricated, and which had been brought forward at the last trial?

MR. BRUCE

said, the hon. Gentleman had asked him four Questions. The first was—Who was responsible for that prosecution? His answer was, that he, as Home Secretary, was responsible for it. A person who was a party to a suit in a Court of Justice having been considered by the Judge to have committed perjury, the Judge in the exercise of Ids authority committed him to prison in order that he might be tried on that charge. The case was an important one. There was no person except the Crown to undertake the prosecution, and the Crown, in accordance with precedent, undertook it. Such prosecutions occurred frequently. The hon. Member wished the Crown also to undertake the cost of the defence; but such a proceeding was altogether unprecedented. The hon. Gentleman's second Question was, whether the Government would afford such aid to the defendant as he would be legally entitled to receive if he had been committed for trial after examination before a magistrate? Under the Act of the hon. and learned Recorder, passed in a previous Session, witnesses for the defence who appeared before a magistrate, and who were deemed by the magistrate to be material witnesses, might be bound over by him to appear on the trial; and at the conclusion of the trial the Judge who tried the case might, if he thought proper, order the expenses of those witnesses to be paid. The defendant, in this instance, having been committed, not by a magistrate but by a Judge, there was no provision made by statute for the costs of any of his witnesses. But the answer he had given on the application made in this instance was, that at the conclusion of the trial he would, in conjunction with the Treasury, consider what was fair and proper to be done in a case of that sort. The hon. Member's third Question was, whether if an hon. Member made an appeal to the public for subscriptions for the defence of that person, he would desire the Attorney General to prosecute him? His answer to that—in accordance with what he believed had fallen from the Lord. Chief Justice—was, that if such an appeal was made to the public in decent and proper language, it would not be a fit subject for a prosecution. The fourth Question put by the hon. Gentleman was, what steps did he propose to take with regard to certain letters in connection with that case which were alleged to have been forged? He knew nothing about those forged letters; but he believed the Lord Chief Justice had stated them to be wholly immaterial upon the point at issue, and he therefore could not sea what advantage was to be gained by entering on any such investigation as to their authorship as had been alluded to. With respect to the correspondence referred to in the hon. Member's Notice, it could be produced if the hon. Gentleman moved for it.

Main Question, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair," put, and agreed to.