PRIVILEGE—(TOWER HIGH LEVEL BRIDGE (METROPOLIS) COMMITTEE). (Hansard, 22 July 1879)

§ THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER
I do not propose to detain the House at any great length on the subject of this Report, because the Motion, with which I intend to conclude, will not be of a final character; but I shall propose to fix to-morrow for the decision of the House as to what steps it may think ought to be taken. I, therefore, would only remind the House that the Report which we have had placed before us is the Report of the Select Committee that was appointed last week for the purpose of inquiring into certain circumstances which had been reported by a Committee on a Private Bill—the Committee on the Tower High Level Bridge (Metropolis) Bill. The nature of those circumstances is, I think, pretty well known to all the Members of the House. Hon. Members are aware that in the course of the proceedings of that Private Bill Committee some communication was made to the Committee to the effect that a Mr. Charles Edmund Grissell had been making overtures to the solicitors who were engaged in the conduct of the case of one of the parties to that Bill, and had asserted, in the course of his communications, that he had the power to control the proceedings of the Committee. He further stated that he was willing to exercise his power of control on a consideration—namely, the sum of £2,000, which he expected to receive for that purpose. That communication had 972 been made in concert with his solicitor, Mr. John Sandilands Ward. A Select Committee was appointed to inquire into the circumstances, and as their Report is now in the possession of the House, together with the evidence they have taken, it will be sufficient for my purpose to call the attention of the House to the concluding paragraphs of that Report, which, perhaps, the House will permit me to read. The Committee say— Your Committee, having fully considered the statements presented to them, and having regard to the character of the evidence given by, and the demeanour of, the several witnesses, and the documents produced, have come to the unanimous conclusion that the statements made by Mr. Hooker and Mr. Cockell are true, and that the counter-statements made by Mr. Ward and Mr. Grissell are false; but your Committee do not think it necessary to point out in detail the discrepancies and contradictions with which the evidence of the two last-mentioned witnesses abounds. Your Committee are unanimously of opinion that Mr. Grissell, in asserting that he could control the decision of the Committee on the Tower High Level Bridge (Metropolis) Bill, and in the offer he made to do so, was guilty of a breach of the Privileges of the House. And they are also unanimously of opinion that,Mr. Ward was cognizant of, and assisted Mr. Grissell in, the matter of this offer, and was likewise guilty of a breach of the Privileges of the House. Now, the unanimous finding of that Select Committee is obviously one of very great importance. The charge they make is one of so very grave a nature that it demands the earnest attention of this House. At the same time, I think that the feeling of the House will probably be that in a matter of this kind we ought to proceed with proper deliberation, and I shall, therefore, move— That Mr. Charles Edmund Grissell and Mr. John Sandilands Ward do attend this House Tomorrow, at Twelve o'clock, when the House will decide what further course it will take.

§ SIR WILLIAM FRASER
I should like to say a word as to a Question which was put by me when this matter was first brought forward, but which received no answer. A Motion had been made to the effect that Mr. Charles Edmund Grissell attend at the Bar of this House; but that Motion was withdrawn, and I ventured to ask this Question—If Mr. Grissell were not then ordered to attend, what means would there subsequently 973 be of forcing his attendance? I have no means of knowing whether Mr. Grissell will appear to-morrow, or not; but, looking at human nature as it usually is, I should say that his appearance here is exceedingly improbable. The matter having been investigated, and circumstances having been alleged that are apparently strongly condemnatory of him, I should think it is most improbable that he will appear, and I venture, therefore, to ask this Question—What means have been taken to ensure his attendance at the Bar of this House to-morrow at 12 o'clock?

§ MR. WHITBREAD
Sir, before any answer is made by the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer to the Question just put to him by the hon. Baronet (Sir William Fraser), I should like to say a few words on this matter. I, for one, am sorry to find that the case is to be treated in the manner proposed, and I should be glad to hear from the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he has consulted the Law Officers of the Crown as to whether the case is not one that ought to be dealt with in the ordinary course of law? It seems to me, on reading the evidence that has been published, that the offence charged against the persons concerned is that of a mere vulgar attempt to obtain money, and I should have thought it raising that offence to too dignified a position to call these two persons to the Bar of this House. I should much have preferred, if it could have been so determined, that the matter should have been dealt with in the ordinary process of the law. If these persons had set themselves up as seriously questioning the Privileges of this House, I could understand that the method now proposed would be the proper way in which the House should deal with the matter; but it seems to me that they do not pretend that there was any justification for the act they committed, and, this being so, and the offence being a vulgar and common attempt to obtain money in a corrupt way, I should have been much better pleased if the case could have been dealt with by the ordinary law.

§ THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER
In reply to the Question of my hon. Friend (Sir William Fraser) as to what means are to be taken for requiring the attendance of Mr. Grissell at the Bar of this House, I can only say that 974 we must wait till we see whether the Order he will receive from Mr. Speaker, and which will be of a peremptory character, is obeyed or not, and then it will be for the House to consider what we shall otherwise do, and it would be unwise to anticipate it. With regard to what has been said by the hon. Member for Bedford (Mr. Whitbread), I may say that there is, no doubt, something in the point he has raised; but I have consulted my learned Friends the Law Advisers of the Crown in the matter, and they are distinctly of opinion that the case is one which it would be rather difficult to deal with in the ordinary Courts of Law. It having first been brought under the notice of a Committee of this House, then, having been brought by that Committee before this House, and afterwards discussed by a Select Committee appointed for the purpose, and that Committee having reported that there has been a Breach of Privilege, I think it would be difficult now to take the course which the hon. Member for Bedford has suggested. On referring to precedents in relation to such cases, I have found that in former times there have been several in which attempts to influence corruptly the proceedings of this House have been dealt with summarily as Breaches of Privilege.

§ MR. CALLAN
May I ask the Attorney General, whether, taking the Report of the Select Committee to be substantially that the statements of Mr. Grissell and Mr. Ward were false—that they have pledged their oaths to false statements—cannot an indictment be formed against them before an ordinary legal tribunal for the offence so committed?

§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir JOHN HOLKER)
There is no doubt that Mr. Grissell and Mr. Ward have given false evidence before the Committee, and if the fact that they have given false evidence can be substantiated by evidence, they might be convicted and punished for that offence. At the same time, I do not think that that would be a desirable course to take.