OBSERVATIONS. (Hansard, 8 June 1877)

§ MR. WHALLEY
rose to call attention to the Petition of John De Morgan, praying to be heard at the Bar of the House; and to move the following Resolution:— "That there be laid before this House, a Return of the expenditure in relation to the Tichborne prosecution, specifying separately the sums paid and expended on account thereof, as was done in the case of the Welsh fasting girl, and especially the sums paid to or expended in respect of such persons as were subpœnaed or 1558 retained as witnesses on the part of the prosecution but were not called upon to give evidence on the trial, with their names and addresses, and the sums paid to or expended in respect of each person. No satisfactory account had been given of the expenditure at that trial, and if they wished to calm the agitation out-of-doors, that account should be faithfully rendered. What was the amount paid for witnesses not called? Dr. Kenealy did not call some of them, because he believed they were in the pay of the Government. There were millions of people in the country now who believed that the claimant was the real Tichborne. The Petitions which had been presented to the House showed the Petitioners believed there had been gross corruption and injustice on the part of the Judges who tried the case, and he was prepared to the best of his judgment to prove that there was ample ground for the complaint. ["Oh, oh!"]

MR. ASSHETON CROSS
desired to ask Mr. Speaker, whether the hon. Member was in Order in making such observations, the Notice on the Paper being for a Return of expenses?

§ MR. SPEAKER
said, that the Question before the House was that the House should go into Committee of Supply, a Question on which great latitude was allowed, but the hon. Member was very severely trenching on the privileges allowed to Members, and taxing the patience of the House. Although the hon. Member was not, strictly speaking, out of Order, yet it was unbecoming to charge the Judges with improper conduct, as he had done, for if he desired to challenge their conduct his proper course was to move an Address to the Crown for their removal.

§ MR. WHALLEY
, amid great interruption, continued, that he was about to accept the challenge that had been made to him to test the feeling of a public meeting in Birmingham as to this "atrocious conspiracy." The question the House of Commons had to decide was whether the Home Secretary should or should not grant those Returns. He wanted to know how the money had been expended. The particulars of the expenditure were necessary, because, as he understood, the right hon. Gentleman objected to receive any other evidence than that which was laid before the Court. Here was the letter of one of 1559 the jurymen who tried the case, in which he stated that he had been deceived, and that he as well as others desired the information asked for, the names and addresses, and where they could be found, of the witnesses subpœnaed on the part of the Crown to give evidence against the defendant, and who subsequently turned their backs and refused to do so, stating that in the person of the accused, represented as Orton, they recognized Tichborne. These persons had been sent away. If he could not prove these facts, then he should give up his case. That case he rested on the miscarriage of justice. Let the Government give a statement of the expenditure in that trial. That was a reasonable request. The conduct of the Government and of the trial was indefensible. The poor man was even prevented by the Judges to go about to meetings, and to obtain, by a statement of his case, to get even a few pounds to aid him in his difficulties. The vast amount of the public money expended in paying adverse witnesses was to be decried as most unjustly misapplied. He would ask the Government whether they were doing their duty in the cause of order in exercising their mechanical majority, who followed them, without regard to their conscience? ["Order, order!"]

§ MR. SPEAKER
said, the hon. Gentleman was not justified in saying that hon. Members did not act according to their conscience.

§ MR. WHALLEY
expressed his regret that he had so expressed himself, and read a letter from one of the jurors who conscientiously declared his feeling of regret for the decision he had come to. He also called attention to what he alleged as facts—the Government having kept Charles Orton, the alleged brother of the Claimant, two years at the public expense, and their having failed to call him on the trial. What he asked was that the Government should give an account of the money expended in the trial.

§ SIR WILLIAM FRASER
deeply regretted that the hon. Member should have taken advantage of the Privilege of the House to speak in the way he had of Her Majesty's Judges.

§ MR. W. H. SMITH
said, the hon. Member had made a long speech and imputed corrupt motives to those who had faithfully discharged their duty.

§ MR. WHALLEY
rose to Order. He had not said anything of the kind; he had only referred to the Petitions, and had expressed his readiness to support their demand for inquiry.

§ MR. W. H. SMITH
said, the hon. Member had, in the recollection of the House, charged Mr. Gray, the late Solicitor to the Treasury, and others with corrupt motives and with acting carelessly.

§ MR. WHALLEY
again rose to contradict the statement.

§ MR. SPEAKER
said, emphatically, that the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury was in possession of the House, and must be allowed to proceed to the end of his speech without interruption.

§ MR. W. H. SMITH
said, the accounts of the expenditure were prepared by the late Solicitor to the Treasury, and had been audited and presented to the House. He deprecated these constant appeals to the House to re-try a case which had already been disposed of by a Judge and jury, and added that there was a limit even to the time, patience, and endurance of the House. It was again his duty to refuse this application, which, with the one exception of the Welsh fasting girl, was without precedent.