§ MR. WHALLEYrose to call attention to recent speeches of the Lord Chief Justice at public banquets and elsewhere, imputing to those who take part in efforts for inquiry as to the Tichborne Trial that they are seeking for their own purposes to undermine public confidence in the administration of justice; and to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether in refusing to comply with the Petitions for such inquiry, and especially as to Contempt of Court, he is acting with the approval or assent of the Lord Chief Justice? [An hon. MEMBER: Speak up!] It has often been my misfortune to offend against that unwritten law of Parliament. ["Oh, oh!"] For many years I have submitted to such unseemly interruptions. I am accustomed to the difficulty. I would suggest, however, that there is something in the position of a Member of this House—one of 25 years' standing—which should suggest to hon. Members that he ought not to be snubbed or treated with indignity by persons clothed "with a little brief authority." I think every Member of this House is entitled to respect, and those who do not concede that to others tacitly admit that they themselves are not entitled to it—not to say deserving of it. I assure the House that I shall not detain them by any elaborate argument to convert them to my opinion with respect to the Tichborne Case, nor of the conduct of the Lord Chief Justice in his conduct of that case. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will give an answer to my Question consistent with the courtesy due to Members of this House and his high authority. ["Question!"] [The hon. Member accordingly read the Notice, amid great confusion.] Well, to proceed, I am not about to dwell upon the speeches of the Lord Chief Justice in various parts of the country. As to whether they were good or bad, the House will form its own judgment and take its own course. In my opinion, the Lord Chief Justice has violated all precedent in the administration of the law, and done much to bring the law into contempt. ["No, no!"] The hon. Gentleman who has interrupted me will remember what the Secretary of State 1068 for the Home Department said when questioned upon the matter. He said he did not wish to be informed. Innumerable Petitions on the matter had been forwarded to the right hon. Gentleman, but he did not wish to be informed. There was not a single Member of the House but myself who desired information on the subject. [Laughter, and "No!"] Then, why did not the hon. Member who says "No" vote for the inquiry? I do hope the hon. Member will take notice of the conduct of the Lord Chief Justice with respect to what is called "Contempt of Court." I challenge any hon. Member of the legal profession to say that the law in that respect, as administered by the Lord Chief Justice, was not a direct violation of the law, of precedent, and the Constitution. It was unprecedented in the legal history of this country. ["No, no!"] Let any hon. Gentleman of any weight in this House rise and say that the Lord Chief Justice should inflict fines and imprisonment under the circumstances which he did at the Tichborne Trial. The Chief Justice was not satisfied with inflicting fine and imprisonment on myself and others; no, he thought fit to go about the country to denounce us in language which almost equalled in virulence and intensity that which has been used by the hon. Member for Stoke. He said that all who were opposed to him were uneducated, infatuated vipers, and the scum of society. At the Needlemakers' dinner, because I and those who act with me, supported, as we are, by 500,000 of the people of this country, from an absolute and certain knowledge, believe in this Claimant's innocence, we are to be attacked in this manner. The right hon. Gentleman himself knows that he is innocent. ["Order, order!"]
§ MR. SPEAKERThe hon. Gentleman is clearly out of Order, and I hope he will be more careful in his language.
§ MR. WHALLEYI most unqualifiedly withdraw it; but let the right hon. Gentleman explain the real circumstances to the House why he refuses the information. The right hon. Gentleman had affidavits and correspondence in his possession to convince him that the man now in Dartmoor Prison is not guilty. I trust the House in its impatience 1069 will not sacrifice the rights and privileges of private Members. The Lord Chief Justice said at the dinner to which I have alluded that we have been exciting and getting up this agitation of the question in order to undermine the confidence of the public in the administration of justice. But he goes further than that, for he says that we have been doing it for our own purposes. Now, I ask the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department, whether the inquiry asked for by 200,000 or 300,000 people would not disprove that statement. When the Lord Chief Justice makes this statement imputing to me and others the greatest offence that can be committed, I ask the right hon. Gentleman if he communicated to him that he had documents in his possession which would prove his statement to be groundless, or whether he had consulted the other Judges by whom the case was tried? We have had correspondence from Australia and all parts of the world to show this man's innocence, and is the right hon. Gentleman justified in refusing an inquiry and insulting an hon. Member? ["Order, order, order!"]
§ MR. SPEAKERThe hon. Gentleman is entirely out of Order. I must call upon him to be more guarded in his language.
§ MR. WHALLEYI will withdraw the words. The right hon. Gentleman said, on a former occasion, that I and those who acted with me in this matter knew all about the papers and correspondence sent to him, and more than that. Did the right hon. Gentleman mean to say that I have been seeking to undermine the foundation of the administration of public justice? I do feel that he is called on to justify his statements. When the trial of this unfortunate man first commenced, I said I would go through the country and beg from door to door to enable him to defend himself. Well, I have done so; and my conduct has met with the approval of my constituents. The result of the course I have pursued is that I have been imprisoned, and that this unhappy man has not had a fair trial, inasmuch as from want of funds he has been unable to bring up 200 witnesses who would have given evidence on his behalf. ["Question!"] It is the Question, because you can only 1070 get the information from me, and how can you get it, unless you listen to what I have to say? I acted with the best of my ability, and as I may again have to defend myself before my constituents, and possibly throughout the country wherever my unhappy name is known, it is right I should give an explanation. I will go among them again, and indignantly deny that I have endeavoured to undermine the administration of justice for my own purposes. I wish to know whether the Lord Chief Justice had any personal claims on the confidence and respect of the House and the country to justify him in assailing me or any honest and honourable man who has signed those Petitions to the number of 500,000? I have no desire whatever to do an injustice to the Lord Chief Justice, whose talents and ability I fully acknowledge; but I want to know whether or not he is a consenting or approving party to the refusal to inquire into the exercise of the power to arrest and imprison for contempt of Court. That is the object of my Notice. It has been my object to maintain public confidence in the administration of justice, and to vindicate it from the errors, or whatever they may call it, that have crept into it. ["Divide, divide!"] I am not disposed to sit down under that imputation. And in the event—["Divide, divide!"]—in the event—["Divide, divide!"]—in the event—["Divide, divide!"] Well, I do not know that it matters much, and, perhaps, I have said enough; but I was going to say that in the event of my having to address my constituents or some other body—and since the trial I have not attended any public meeting—I shall have to consider that charge of the Lord Chief Justice; and I wish to know whether I can excuse him publicly from what I shall consider a serious aggravation of his exercise of power, he having been an assenting or approving party to refuse inquiry into it.
MR. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, he was not going to enter into any discussion upon this question. He regretted that the hon. Gentleman had thought it his duty to bring this matter before the House again. He had, he believed, in the course of the present Session and the last answered more Questions of the hon. Gentleman than those of any other Member of the House whatever, and he put it to the House whether from the first day he held the office he had the honour to hold 1071 he had ever treated any hon. Member with discourtesy. That afternoon he did state what he believed to be true—namely, that, with the exception of the hon. Gentleman himself, there was no Member of the House who desired to obtain further information about this case. He gave the hon. Gentleman credit for knowing a great deal more about this case, because he had attended to it for so long a time, than was contained in any documents at the Home Office. As far as he (Mr. Cross) was personally concerned, he had acted on his own responsibility, and from beginning to end he had treated this case precisely as he had treated every other criminal case that had been submitted to him as Secretary for the Home Department. He had paid particular attention to it, as he had to other cases. He had read every document that had been presented to him on the subject, and without giving the names of those whom he might have consulted in this or any other case, he could say distinctly that it was solely on his own responsibility that he advised Her Majesty how to deal with it. He did not think he should be justified in occupying the time of the House any further.
§ Main Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."
§ Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
§ Committee deferred till Monday next.