§ MR. BIGGARasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, If he would state why he did not place the memorials of Mr. John Clare, the inventor, patentee, designer, promoter, and upholder of the metal shipbuilding of the State Navy (vide Records of the Admiralty) since 1853, and the Plaintiff in "Clare v. The Queen," dated 3rd March 1874, and 11th December 1876, addressed to Her Most Gracious Majesty, before the Queen; and, whether he has any objection to lay the said Documents upon the Table of the House?
MR. ASSHETON CROSSI must say I rather object to a Question which is argumentative. The facts, however, are these. In 1861 Mr. Clare sent in a Petition on his claims. It was referred to the Law Officers, who advised the insertion of the venue; this having been made, the Petition was endorsed and returned to Mr. Clare. The case was tried in February, 1863, before Lord Chief Justice Cockburn and a special jury, and Mr. Clare's claims were disallowed. An application for a new trial made to the full Court of Queen's Bench was unanimously refused. On June 17, 1863, Mr. Clare forwarded to the Home Office a Petition for presentation to the Queen, which was referred to the Admiralty. On June 22 Mr. Clare forwarded affidavits by himself and a Mr. Morrison, and requested to 1441 know what Department of the State would initiate legal proceedings against Sir Charles Fox for perjury in the late trial. This was not answered. On the 1st of July he sent further representations to support his Petition received on the 18th of June, and forwarded to the Admiralty for remarks. On the same day, July 1, the Admiralty returned the Petition forwarded to them with the remarks that —1. The matters referred to were tried before the Lord Chief Justice of England and a special jury, who found a verdict against the Petitioner on all the issues. 2. A new trial was refused unanimously by the full Court of Queen's Bench. 3. If he has any claims for designs which have not been litigated, the ordinary tribunals are open to him. On July 9, 1863, Mr. Clare was informed by the Home Office that his Petition had been referred to the Admiralty by Her Majesty's command, and that all future communications upon the subject must be addressed to them; that
further correspondence with the Home Office would be entirely useless, as Sir George Grey had no power whatever to interfere in a matter which did not in any way concern his Department of the State.On April 21, 1864, the matter was brought before the House of Commons, Colonel Dickson moving for a Select Committee. The Motion was negatived without a division. In 1866 other proceedings occurred before the magistrates against the witnesses for perjury. There was no correspondence on the subject till 1874, when I came to the Home Office. On the 21st of February a Petition was sent by Mr. Clare direct to the Queen, which was returned. Then there was a Memorial on the 24th of March; the answer from the Home Office was that it was not usual to present a Memorial to the Queen after a matter had been disposed of; but, in order to see whether there was any possible claim on the part of Mr. Clare, I thought it prudent and wise to send the whole case once more to the Law Officers of the Crown, who reported that he had no claim whatever. Therefore, the whole matter being thus decided, I declined, as Secretary of State, any further correspondence on the subject. So far as I am concerned, I see no reason to question the course taken by Sir George Grey.
§ MR. BIGGARthen asked the right hon. Gentleman, If he would state why he did not act in his official capacity on the Petition addressed to him as Secretary of State for the Home Department, bearing date 23rd March, 1874, of Mr. John Clare, the inventor, patentee, designer, promoter, and upholder of the metal shipbuilding of the State Navy (vide Records of the Admiralty) since 1853, and the Plaintiff in "Clare v. The Queen," complaining of the unmagisterial conduct of Mr. Thomas Arnold, the stipendiary at the Westminster Police Court, for his refusal to commit one of the witnesses of the Admiralty (an iron shipbuilder) in "Clare v. The Queen" to the Central Criminal Court, to take his trial for wilful and corrupt perjury, after the said magistrate had ruled "Not only wilful and corrupt perjury, but also forgery had been proved against the said iron shipbuilder by his foreman, an adverse and unwilling witness to Mr. Clare;" and, whether he has any objection to lay the said Document upon the Table of the House?
MR. ASSHETON CROSS,in reply, said, the case was heard before Mr. Arnold in 1866. No application had been made to the Home Office between that time and 1874; and he put it to the House whether the Secretary of State, in these circumstances, should be called upon to produce the documents referred to.