HC Deb 30 July 1879 vol 248 cc1632-8
MR. SPENCER WALPOLE

moved that the following Petition of John Sandilands Ward be taken into consideration:— To the honourable the Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland assembled. The humble Petition of John Sandilanda Ward, now a prisoner in the custody of the Serjeant at Arms attending your honourable House, Sheweth, That the Petitioner has not only suffered very much, from loss of liberty, but his health has been seriously affected in consequence of his imprisonment by order of your honourable House, as is shewn by the certificates of Dr. Sieveking, Physician in Ordinary to the Queen, and Dr. J. H. Waters, of which the following are copies:— '"July 29, 1879.—I have this day, in the presence of Dr. Waters, examined Mr. J. S. Ward, and find him affected with diarrhœ;a, headache, and great depression of spirits. Ten years ago Mr. Ward suffered in a similar manner, and was then obliged to withdraw from business for eight months; there is just reason, to fear that if his present symptons become aggravated by prolonged imprisonment, a similar or worse nervous malady than that which occurred before may return.—(Signed) Edward H. Sieveking, M.D., Fellow of the Royal College of Physicians.' 'July 29th, 1879.—I certify that I have this day seen and examined Mr. J. S. Ward, in conjunction with Dr. Sieveking, and find him suffering from symptoms of nervous irritation and debility, and am of opinion that these symptoms will lead up to a severe illness, similar to a former attack from which he suffered some nine years ago, unless his present confinement, and the trouble consequent on it, ceases.—(Signed) J. H. Waters, M.D.' That your Petitioner entirely submits himself to your honourable House, and begs to express his unfeigned sorrow and regret for having incurred its displeasure, but he ventures most humbly to hope that your honourable House will deem that the harassing imprisonment your Petitioner has already undergone, and the very serious loss and inconvenience thereby entailed upon him, are a sufficient expiation of the offence against the privileges of your honourable House, of which he has been adjudged guilty. Your Petitioner therefore humbly prays that your honourable House will order his discharge out of custody. And your Petitioner, as in duty bound, will ever pray. Dated this 29th day of July 1879.

"J. SANDILANDS WARD."

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

I propose to move now— That John Sandilands Ward, having entirely submitted himself to this House, and expressed his sorrow and regret for his offence, and having already suffered in his health, be discharged out of the custody of the Serjeant at Arms, on payment of his fees. The case is one in which, under ordinary circumstances, I certainly should not have recommended the House to take any steps for the discharge of Mr. Ward until the close of the Session; but, having regard to the fact that he has entirely placed himself at the mercy of the House, and expressed his sorrow and regret for his offence, and having regard mainly to the medical certificates which have been presented on this occasion, and which are in the hands of the Serjeant-at-Arms, and with regard to which I think I may say, from the testimony of those who have had opportunities of seeing Mr. Ward constantly during the period of his confinement, there can be no doubt that they do not at all exaggerate the circumstances of his health. Under all these circumstances, I think that the House may fairly and mercifully take the case into consideration, and assent to the Motion which I now submit to it.

MR. W. E. FORSTER

I beg to second the Motion. My first impression was that of the right hon. Gentleman, that it would have been right, and not at all too severe a punishment, that this person should have remained in custody until the close of the Session. I cannot say I think the entire submission to the House would, in itself, have been any reason why Mr. Ward should have been liberated; but, looking at the medical certificates, which are certainly very strong and by a very eminent physician—Dr. Sieveking, I think—the House would hardly think it right to detain him in custody any longer.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That John Sandilands Ward, having entirely submitted himself to this House, and expressed his sorrow and regret for his offence, and having already suffered in his health, be discharged out of the custody of the Serjeant at Arms, on payment of his fees.

MR. BERESFORD HOPE

"The quality of mercy is not strained," as we all know; and, therefore, the House will probably do well to accept the Motion of my right hon. Friend, but simply accept it as an act of mercy, and simply on the medical testimony, and, above all, not accept it on any ambiguity. I think my right hon. Friend, in the kindness of his heart and his desire to help a suffering man, has gone a little too far in his account of Mr. Ward's submission, and that it would be a mistake in the cause of justice if it were to be supposed that Mr. Ward had confessed the justice of his sentence, and had verbally re- tracted that statement of his which has placed him in his present unpleasant predicament. I must bring the House back to the case itself. What was the state of the case? The Committee, over which my right hon. Friend and Colleague (Mr. Spencer Walpole) presided, reported that one class of witnesses spoke the truth, and that another class of witnesses spoke something that was not the truth; that they believed the one class, but did not believe the other. The House, accordingly, believing and agreeing with its Committee, sentenced the two delinquents to imprisonment. One has escaped that imprisonment, and is now swaggering under an alias at an eminently respectable and delightful resort of English visitors across the Channel. The other is in custody, and has made a submission. But what is his submission? Has he retracted his false statement? He has done no such thing. He says— Your Petitioner entirely submits himself to your honourable House, and begs to express his unfeigned sorrow and regret for having incurred its displeasure. But he takes good care not to say whether that displeasure was incurred rightly or wrongly. It has taken him away from the vicinity of his clients, and has placed him in close proximity to the ticking of the clock. He expresses his unfeigned regret for this; and I think the House will agree with me that no one ever did a questionable thing and found the penalties were disagreeable, who did not very soon afterwards find that Providence had endowed him with a bad constitution. This being the case, and seeing that Dr. Sieveking and another physician say that the confinement is injurious to Mr. Ward's health, for Heaven's sake let him out; but do not allow it to go forth that we believe his evidence, or that he has retracted his false statement.

MR. MONK

My hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge University (Mr. Beresford Hope) has anticipated me in the remarks I was going to make. I am quite certain that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in framing the Motion he has placed in your hands, and in the statement he has just made to the House, that Mr. Ward had admitted his offence, really believed that Mr. Ward had so admitted his offence; but in the Petition which Mr. Ward has presented to the House it is quite clear that he has not admitted it. He has expressed his regret for having incurred the displeasure of the House; and at the close of his Petition he calls attention to the imprisonment which he has undergone, in expiation of the offence against the Privileges of the House, of which he had been adjudged guilty. But there is not one word in the nature of an expression of regret for having committed a grave offence against the Privileges of the House. I, therefore, think it is impossible for the House to agree to the Resolution in the form in which it has been submitted to us by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer will consent to amend the terms of the Motion, and will quote the words which appear in the Petition of Mr. Ward, I think that, after having received a certificate from Dr. Sieveking of the nature of the one we have before us, the House might very well extend its clemency to Mr. Ward; but that we are to put on record on the Journals of this House a statement that Mr. Ward has admitted his offence when he has not admitted his offence is altogether repugnant to the dignity of Parliament. I hope, therefore, that the Chancellor of the Exchequer will amend his Motion in that sense. If not, I think it would be impossible for the House unanimously to agree to this act of mercy, which, I am sure, we are all anxious to extend to Mr. Ward.

MR. DODSON

I would really appeal to the House not to continue this discussion. A question has been raised in regard to the dignity of the House; but I doubt whether it is for the dignity of this House to enter into a discussion of this kind. It appears to me that this man has committed an offence against this House, in regard to which the House has found him guilty, and for which he has been punished. That punishment is now about to be curtailed on the score of the state of his health. It seems to me that the proper course, under the circumstances, and what will be most conducive to the dignity of the House, is now to release him on the ground of his health.

MR. HERMON

I quite agree with my right hon. Friend who has just sat down that it will be conducive to the dignity of the House to release this man from confinement. But I must express here my opinion that the first part of the transaction ought not to have involved the serious consequences from which, he is now suffering. As he owned himself, he committed a breach of the Privileges of the House; but he does not appear to have done so from any fraudulent or corrupt motive. But when he came before the Committee he did commit a very serious offence, which ought not to be lost sight of by the House. I am quite willing that he should be discharged from custody; but I think he ought to be brought to the Bar of this House, and called upon to acknowledge his error. The conclusions arrived at by the Committee are of a most serious character, and it is of great importance to consider the words used by the Committee appointed to investigate the matter, when they say that the counter-statements made by Mr. Ward and Mr. Grissell are false. That fact Mr. Ward has never acknowledged; and he does not, to my mind, express himself sorry for his offence against the House, but merely expresses himself sorry for the punishment it has involved. At the same time, I think in the whole of this matter there has been a good deal of unnecessary mixing up of certain persons. I do not think the proposal of the solicitor who first proposed to Mr. Grissell to write down the nature of his proposition was exactly necessary. If, however, in this case Mr. Ward expresses sorrow for what he has done, I think he may now be discharged.

SIR WILFRID LAWSON

I am sure it is the general wish of the House to get rid of this man. The point now is what to do with him. I heard the remarks of the right hon. Gentleman on the front Opposition Bench (Mr. Dodson), and I quite agree with him that we ought to consult the dignity of the House. But I think the dignity of the House would be best consulted by a strict adherence to truth than by anything else. I quite appreciate the Motion of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He made it in the kindness of his heart, in order to get rid of this man, and not to be too hard upon him. I would make a little alteration in the Motion, and would recite the words which the man puts in his own Petition. That makes no statement at all as to whether the man is guilty or innocent; but in it he simply submits himself to the House. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer will be so kind as to alter his Motion in that sense, I am sure it will meet with the approbation of both sides of the House.

SIR JOSEPH M'KENNA

Whatever is to be decided upon I hope will be decided at once. There is one point, and one alone, upon which I wish to make a remark. I do not think, since the days when persecution was prevalent, that it was ever insisted upon by the House that a man who was found guilty, and who was subsequently pardoned, should acknowledge the various details of his guilt. We have found Mr. Ward guilty. We are quite confident that he is guilty. We have sustained, unanimously, the judgment of our Committee. The man appears before us now as a man suffering from sickness; and what the House is now asked to do is to turn its attention to the best way in which the Prerogative of mercy can be exercised in getting rid of this man.

MR. SPENCER WALPOLE

I wish to say one word before the discussion closes. I think the hon. Member for Carlisle (Sir Wilfrid Lawson) did not quite correctly hear the Motion which has been made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. When it is read again I think the House will find that in the Motion now made the Chancellor of the Exchequer uses the exact words of the Petition, both in regard to the submission, and also in regard to the regret expressed in it.

MR. COURTNEY

It is desirable that the House should have a clear understanding. I understood the Chancellor of the Exchequer to read these words in the Motion—"having admitted his guilt." ["No!"] That is, certainly, what I understood. If those words are in the Resolution, we wish to have them struck out. If not, of course, the case would be altogether different.

MR. SPEAKER

said, the Question was— That John Sandilands Ward, having entirely submitted himself to this House, and expressed his sorrow and regret for his offence, and having already suffered in his health, be discharged out of the custody of the Serjeant at Arms, on payment of his fees.

Motion agreed to.