HC Deb 07 December 1888 vol 331 cc1402-4
MR. T. M. HEALY (Longford N.)

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Has his attention been called to the following Report, in. The Cornish Times of October 20:— At the Stonehouse County Court on Wednesday, before Mr. J. Giffard, Judge— Mr. F. W. Skardon applied that the order for the release of the debtor Bertram, formerly of Carbeale House, Torpoint, might be suspended for a day or two, on the ground that the official receiver was going to institute a prosecution. It will be remembered that Bertram has been in prison since January. His Honour said that a Petition had been made to the Home Secretary for Bertram's release on the ground of ill-health. The Home Secretary had communicated with him (His Honour), and upon this he had ordered the debtor's unconditional and immediate release. Mr. Skardon then asked that the order for release might be so altered that Bertram would be out on bail. His Honour said he had signed the order, and had no longer any jurisdiction; had this prisoner been committed for contempt of court; and did the Home Secretary interfere, as stated; and, if so, under what powers?

MR. CONYBEARE (Cornwall, Camborne)

asked the Secretary of State for the Homo Department, Whether it is the fact that one C. Bertram was adjudged a bankrupt by the late County Court Judge Giffard, under the following circumstances—namely, that he took a house at Torpoint, fitted it up with furniture for which he never paid, and was afterwards arrested as an absconding debtor with goods in his possession which did not belong to him; whether he was subsequently committed to prison for contempt of Court in not filing proper accounts when ordered to do so by the Judge; whether on October 16, an order for his release was made by the same Judge, in spite of an application to suspend the granting of such order for release, for the purpose of communicating with the Board of Trade, and because a prosecution was intended; whether the Judge refused to suspend the order for release, stating, as his reason, that he had received a communication from him requesting the release of Bertram; can he state at whose instance, by what authority, and for what reason, he made such a communication; and, did he advise Her Majesty in this case to exervise her Prerogative of Mercy towards the said Bertram?

THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. MATTHEWS) (Birmingham, E)

I will answer the Question of the hon. Member for North Longford and that of the hon. Member for the Camborne Division at the same time. I have no information as to the particulars which led to Mr. Bertram's bankruptcy. All that I know of the case is as follows:—The prisoner was committed in January last on suspicion that he was about to go abroad to avoid examination, or otherwise embarrass the proceedings in bankruptcy. He was ordered to be kept safely till the Court may order. On October 2 he petitioned me for his release, on the ground of failing health and long imprisonment. The Prison Medical Report supported his statements. Following the usual practice, I sent the Petition and Report to the Judge for such directions as he might be pleased to give, it not being a case in which the Secretary of State had jurisdiction. On October 14 the Judge informed me that he had signed the order for the prisoner's release. The Official Receiver in bankruptcy opposed the discharge strenuously. I am not able to say, on the information before me, whether this objection was made after the discharge of the prisoner. The Judge only tells me that, under all the circumstances, he did not think fit to accede to the representations made by the Receiver; and he points out that the discharge will in no way prevent the prosecution of the debtor.

MR. T. M. HEALY

asked, how the right hon. Gentleman reconciled his statement that he had no information as to the particulars of committal in this case with the statement made by him on Thursday, that he could not advise the Crown to exercise the Prerogative of Mercy in interference with an order of attachment to enforce another order, and that the exercise of that Prerogative was confined to definite penal sentences?

MR. MATTHEWS

said, he was not aware of the circumstances as to the delaying of the bankruptcy proceedings; but he was, of course, aware of the circumstance attending committal.

MR. T. M. HEALY

asked, was this, then, a case of committal in order to enforce an order, otherwise a committal for contempt; and, if so, why did he state that in such cases the Home Office never interfered?

MR. MATTHEWS

said, it was not he who interfered. It was the Judge who ordered the release.

MR. T. M. HEALY

said, he would call attention to this matter on the Estimates.

MR. CONYBEARE (Cornwall, Camborne)

asked, whether it was not stated in Court that the Judge was requested by the Home Secretary to release the prisoner?

[No reply.]