HC Deb 09 July 1889 vol 337 cc1898-910

Order read, for Further Consideration of Postponed Resolution:— That a sum, not exceeding £11,400, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Expense of Martial Law, including the cost of Naval Prisons at Home and Abroad, &c. which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1890.

THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Lord GEORGE HAMILTON, (Middlesex, Ealing)

The House will remember that this Resolution was postponed because the hon. Member for Northampton and the hon. Member for Coventry wished to make certain observations on the case of the boy Henry Thompson; and as the hon. Member for Northampton did not wish to express any opinion on the case so long as it was awaiting judicial decision, I undertook to postpone the consideration of the Resolution until the Court of Law bad dealt with the issue. I think that if I now make a short statement in relation to this very remarkable case it will tend to shorten the observations of the hon. Member for Northampton. The facts are very peculiar. Her Majesty's ship Calliope was in New South Wales in the month of November last year, and in the first week of that month two men deserted from the vessel, one of them being a young seaman named Floyd, 18 years of age, and 5ft. 1in. in height. Details of his desertion were forwarded home, and were in the hands of the police in this country in the month of January. In the first week of the month of December a young man, by name Henry Thompson, ran away from his parents who were living at Coventry, and wandered about the big towns in the Midland Counties endeavouring to enlist in the Militia. He was early in January in a state of great destitution, and he absconded with some money belonging to a man in whose house he was lodging, and who had taken him in out of pity. A warrant for his arrest was issued at the instance of the wife of the man whose money had been stolen, and the police were on the look out for him. This is the governing consideration in what happened subsequently. The boy went on to Derby and lodged there at a public-house, the owner of which noticed that he was in a state of great nervousness and apprehension. The boy told him, with every appearance of truth, that he was a deserter from the Navy; that the seaman with whom he had run away had been taken; and he was hesitating as to what he should do.

* MR. BRADLAUGH (Northampton)

hope the noble Lord will say whether lie is stating anything which is outside the affidavit.

LORD G. HAMILTON

The hon. Member must recollect that the affidavit made by Thompson was made in order to set the Court of Queen's Bench in motion to sue out a writ of habeas corpus, but it never came under the cognizance of the Court and was in no way used. The only affidavit which came before the Court was one in relation to the particular case affecting the contempt of 'Court, and the statements I am about to make are statements that can be proved. A day or two afterwards Thompson enlisted in the Militia. The publican met a policeman to whom he narrated these facts, and on referring to the Police Gazette the policeman found a description of a deserter which exactly tallied with that of the young man. The policeman arrested the young man, who again said he was a deserter, and asked if his friend had been taken. Before the commanding officer the young man repeated the statement that he was a deserter from Her Majesty's Navy. In the opinion of those who investigated the case there was no doubt that the young man was a deserter, and he was sent under arrest to Portsmouth. On his way thither he made much the same statement; but when he came before Captain Woodward, of Her Majesty's ship Duke of Wellington, he said he was not a deserter, and that his name was Thompson. He gave two addresses, and his denial was made in such a way that it did not carry conviction. On his arm were the letters "W.F.," as Captain Woodward thought, which exactly corresponded with the tattooed marks on the actual deserter. In height he was two inches taller than the deserter had been the year previous when he was last measured; but Captain Woodward thought that as boys grow it was not improbable he had grown two inches during the year. After investigating the case Captain Woodward arrived at the conclusion that he was a deserter, and sentenced him to 90 days' imprisonment with hard labour. On the way to the gaol he again said he was a deserter from Her Majesty's ship Belleisle. At the gaol he said he was not a deserter. The Governor remanded him, and be then ascertained that the prisoner had informed the escort on the way from Portsmouth that he was a deserter. The Governor had him up again, and taxed him with the fact that he had told the escort that he was a deserter, and that his name was Floyd. He was punished for making a false statement. During the whole time he was in prison, neither to the Chaplain nor to the Visiting Justices did he say that he was other than a deserter from Her Majesty's ship Calliope He served his term of imprisonment and went back to the Duke of Wellington He then said he had not been a deserter. Captain Woodward ordered the boy to be brought before him the next day for the purpose of investigating the case. Captain Woodward telegraphed to the Chief Constable of Coventry, and the reply of the Chief Constable was such as to verify the boy's statement. Further examination was made, and two days afterwards Captain Woodward made a Report to the Commander-in-Chief. The Report was sent to the Admiralty; and six days from the time the boy made this last statement an order was sent from the Admiralty for his release. Therefore, as soon as the error was detected, every possible effort was made to remedv it. A local solicitor interested himself in the case, and Captain Woodward told him all the facts. The solicitor induced the boy to sign two false statements in an affidavit—that he was seven years younger and two inches and a half shorter than was the case. How any solicitor could have induced the boy to make that statement, when it was contrary to the fact, I cannot understand. That affidavit was accompanied by another, in which it was stated that the solicitor had called Captain Woodward's attention to these facts. Two days after the young man's release application was made to the Court of Queen's Bench for a writ of habeas corpus. Captain Woodward, on receiving a telegram to this effect, did not at first quite know what was to be done. Direction were given that the young man was to be delivered up to the Court of Queen's Bench on the Tuesday following. To comply with that the boy had to be kept more or less under restraint, and Admiral Commerell and Captain Woodward thought the best way was not to revoke the orders which had been given. In arriving at that decision Captain Woodward apparently committed a contempt of Court; but there is a good deal to be said for that decision from a commonsense point of view. As soon as I heard what had occurred I asked my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War that no delay should occur in delivering up the boy to the Court of Queen's Bench. My right hon. Friend undertook that no delay should occur, and the necessary orders were given; but, in the meantime, further complications had ensued. As soon as Thompson's whereabouts and identity had become known, the police, who had been waiting since January with a warrant in their hands, immediately pounced upon him. I then went to my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary to get possession of the boy; and, so far from there being collusion between the three Departments as has been insinuated, everything has been done which was possible to give effect to the writ of habeas corpus, and the whole difficulty arose from the nature of the circumstances which had to be dealt with. Captain Woodward made another technical blunder. On the second day he was required to appear he brought a copy of the writ instead of the writ itself, and the Court declined to take any notice of his presence, although his counsel undertook to have the writ in Court before 4 o'clock, if the Court would sit until then. Ultimately the Judges decided that Captain Woodward had been guilty of contempt of Court in not acting on the telegram, and they fined him £50. There was not the slightest desire or wish on the part of the Admiralty to evade in any way the order made by the Queen's Bench. Several questions have been put to me on the subject of compensation, and I have replied that, in my view, the lad's own conduct having largely contributed to the injury he has suffered, it is not a case for compensation. I do not, however, pretend to be a judge of these matters, and I have, therefore, before coming to a final decision on the matter, referred the question to the Law Officers of the Crown. They have advised that the question of the imprisonment should be considered apart from the, antecedents of the boy, and that they think it a case for moderate compensation. Acting on that advice, I will, with the assistance of the Law Officers, look into the case, with a view of assessing the damages to which the boy is entitled. After the accusations which have been made against the Admiralty I think it only right to point out that, as soon as the mistake was discovered everything was done to remedy it. With regard to summary proceedings, I will, so far as possible, strengthen the safeguards and precautions against such a mistake occurring in future.

* MR. BRADLAUGH

I have, first of all, to thank the noble Lord for his courtesy in adjourning this Vote from the other evening, when I was too unwell to attend. Having said that, I desire to express my deep regret that the noble Lord has thought it right to introduce into this case matters which he tells us his Law Advisers have advised him ought not to have influenced his judgment. I will not discuss the question whether or not this unfortunate lad committed a felony of 18s., because the Magistrates practically dismissed the charge. I will not discuss the cases connected with the writ of habeas corpus, because the High Court of Justice has held that Captain Woodward was in the wrong there, and has inflicted a fine upon him; but I will address myself solely to the grievance which I think it my duty to submit to the House. The grievance is that this young man was tried and sent to gaol for 90 days, without a particle of evidence being taken as to his identity.. The lad denied he was the person he was said to be; but Captain Woodward made no inquiry as to the truth of the statement, until the lad had suffered 90 days' imprisonment. A more monstrous case was never submitted to the House. Thompson was arrested as a deserter. It is said by the noble Lord in the instructions furnished to him that Thompson admitted to the police officer he was a deserter. The police officer never ventured to make an affidavit to that effect. The young man denies that he made the statement, and the evidence is in his favour, because Captain Woodward admits that when the young man was brought before him at first he denied he was a deserter, and that he (Captain Woodward) had the young man shipped in consequence of that denial. So that it is clear the young man if he had been foolish enough to make the statement to the policeman who had everything to gain in the shape of a remand for the arrest of a deserter, did as we find from Captain Woodward's affidavit deny he was a deserter. Captain Woodward's own affidavit states—"The young man denied that he was a deserter, so I had him stripped."

* THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir R. WEBSTER,) Isle of Wight

The constable made an affidavit on June 1, which was handed to the young man's representatives.

* MR. BRADLAUGH

That affidavit was not filed a fortnight ago. But, in any case, then is Captain Woodward's sworn statement. Without a scrap of evidence, and in spite of his denial, the young man was sent to gaol for 90 days. He was asked to sign his name in the prison book, and he signed his real name, Thompson. For doing so he was punished, and further punishment was threatened if he signed Thompson again. The noble Lord did not frankly admit that Captain Woodward acted hastily and regret what had happened; but he brought up a statement that the young man had at some time or other stolen 18s., and therefore deserved to be sent to gaol for 90 days. ["Oh."] If not, why was the statement made to influence the House? It is not fair to bring against the lad a charge which the Magistrates investigated and dismissed. The captain admitted that Thompson denied that he was a deserter, and that he gave two addresses before he was sent to gaol. But only after his punishment was over were the police sent to inquire about the genuineness of the addresses given. No doubt the lad was a fool for trying to enlist two or three times; but that is no reason why one of Her Majesty's Ministers should say that he deserved to be sent to gaol for 90 days. It is on the statements of Captain Woodward that I base my claim; and I move to reduce the Vote by £500. I hope the matter will not be treated in a Party spirit, and that the Government will not allow any consideration but that of the unjust punishment inflicted to weigh with them in the question of compensation.

* MR. BALLANTINE (Coventry)

I beg to second the Motion. I have interested myself in this case because the parents of this young man have long been settled in the town I have the honour to represent. First, I would point out that there is one salient fact in the case that the young man was serving in the Militia under his own name, so that the authorities had warning from outset of the blunder they were about to commit. The constable who arrested him said that Thompson admitted himself to be Floyd, a deserter from the Navy but how could Thompson have heard of Floyd unless the name had been suggested to him by the constable? The captain in his affidavit states that he had satisfied himself that Thompson was Floyd. But how? He said he had the lad stripped and found tattoo marks on the left arm agreeing with the description of Floyd, and Thompson prevaricated in giving two addresses. But there was no prevarication, because one address was that at which he had lived with his parents before joining the Militia, and the other was the address to which his parents afterwards moved. With regard to the tattoo marks, it turned out that Thompson was never tattooed at all. The marks on his arm were occasioned by an accident with a loom. The evidence of identity was, in fact, the same as in the burlesque. "Have you got a strawberry mark on your left arm?" "No." "Then you are my long lost brother." But did the captain use due caution. There is not only the difference in age, but also the difference in height. It is absolutely immaterial whether he was shorter or taller than the deserter Floyd. He was arrested because of the resemblance. But when the captain found there was this difference of height, ought he not to have paused? Captain Woodward took no advantage of the two addresses given by the boy, until offer his return from imprisonment on 11th of May when he was nevertheless, detained on the Duke of Wellington, and was not released even when the captain had satisfied himself that he was not Floyd. In fact, the boy was kept in detention until the 24th of May, and then sent under arrest to the Militia as though he were a deserter, although taken from the Militia by force. The constable then arrested him for theft; but the opinion which the Magistrate entertained of this charge was shown by the fact that he released the boy in his own recognizances in £10. Mr. Justice Mathew suggested the possibility of vindictive motives in the Admiralty Authorities. The First Lord's statement has only aggravated the injury. No regret has been expressed, no compensation offered, and the only thing done has been to attempt to blacken the boy's character by a vamped up charge of theft.

LORD G. HAMILTON

How vamped up?

* MR. BALLANTINE

I do not mean vamped up by the noble Lord. I speak of this case as indicated by the action of the Judge who tried it and dismissed it. Suppose a German subject had been arrested as a deserter, what would the Government have replied to a protest on the part of the German Government? Would they have said, "True the man is not a deserter, but then he is a 'liar'"? They would, of course, have offered instant compensation and reprimanded the captain of the ship. The First Lord has suggested that Thompson made a false statement. But there is no evidence of that. Mr. Justice Manisty had said that the Court entirely distrusted the instructions given to the Admiralty counsel. If there is falsehood on one side or the other, on which side does the motive lie? On the side of the boy who got nothing but imprisonment, or on the side of those who had imprisoned him, and had a distinct motive in evading consequences of their unlawful act? It is said that the marks "W.F." or "W.T." agreed with the description of Floyd. No doubt Floyd was marked "W.F.," but Thompson could not have been tattooed "W.F.," so two pair of initials were suggested to excuse blunder. This is a matter dependent upon eyesight, and the House will be surprised, as I have said, to learn that the man was never tattooed at all. Where was this story designed? Perhaps in the Constructor's Department; and, as to type, I should suggest the Admiral class. Contrast the case of Thompson with the inquiry lately held on the loss of the Sultan. Does anybody suppose that the Duke of Edinburgh and Thompson are equal in the eyes of the law? Two out of the five persons comprising the Court Martial in the Sultan case were Captain Woodward and Admiral Commerell, whose judicial capacity had been so admirably shown in the case of Thompson. I shall advise Thompson to wait and see whether a satisfactory offer is made to him, because there is no doubt, after the expressions of judicial opinion in the case, that he will recover substantial damages in an action for false imprisonment.

Amendment proposed, to leave out "£11,400," in order to insert £10,900." —(Mr. Bradlaugh.)

Question proposed, "That '£11,400' stand part of the Resolution."

SIR R. WEBSTER

I regret that the hon. and learned Member should have imported into his speech the observations with which he concluded. Sir J. Commerell is well-known in this House, and Captain Woodward's career in the Navy might have spared him from the insinuations that have been made, especially as the inquiry with regard to the Sultan has nothing to do with this case. The hon. Member for Northampton and the hon. and learned Member for Coventry appear to think that this House ought to accept as gospel every statement made by this young man Thompson, without any regard to the fact that there was overwhelming evidence that he, at any rate, made a number of deliberate misstatements. The noble Lord did not suggest that the man's imprisonment was justified by his misconduct; but he did suggest that that imprisonment was in no small degree due to the misconduct on his part, and therefore it was necessary to refer to that misconduct. This is not the case of a person who throughout has given a true and consistent account of himself, and who by the misconduct of certain naval officers has been wrongfully imprisoned. The hon. and learned Member for Coventry alluded to the man's parents. Well, we have nothing to do with the respectability of his parents, but there is this point in regard to his parents—that for some reason or another he never communicated with his parents from the month of December, 1888, when he left home, and they did not know where he was. The next fact in the case is that Thompson told several persons that he was a deserter from the Navy, and actually described to one of them the kit that he had when he deserted; and on January 26 there were no fewer than six persons to whom he stated that he intended to make a clean breast of it, that he joined the Navy under the name of Floyd. Then there was the fact that he gave two addresses, and though this has been explained by the hon. and learned Member, it was not explained at the time. Then there is the all-important fact that he himself admitted he was a deserter from the Navy.

* MR. BRADLAUGH

At the very moment that he was brought before Captain Woodward be denied that he was a deserter, and gave the two addresses of his parents, but he was sent to gaol for 90 days without any inquiry as to those addresses being made.

* SIR R. WEBSTER

No doubt under ordinary circumstances inquiry would have been made; but in this case there were facts which naturally led to the conclusion that Thompson was not telling the truth. It is so very easy to be wise after the event, and to judge people's conduct by the light of what has now come to our knowledge. It is suggested that the statement that he was Floyd was extorted from the young man after he had been put for three days upon bread and water. That is an entire mistake. He was sent to prison on the 11th of February, and on the very next day the chaplain saw him and asked him a question, in reply to which he said he was William Floyd, and that his training ship had been the Lion.

* MR. BRADLAUGH

The affidavit is clear that when he went to gaol and had to sign the book he signed the name of Thompson, and that he was punished for so doing by being put for three days on bread and water. It was after that that the chaplain saw him.

* SIR R. WEBSTER

I state from the affidavit of the chaplain the answer he gave the chaplain on the 12th February. The different and contradictory statements which he made naturally induced the authorities to think that they could not put confidence in what he said. It is clear that he continued to pass under the name of Floyd, and that on leaving the prison he signed the book in the name of Floyd. What motive he could have had for doing this when he must have known that he could not be punished I am at a loss to imagine. The hon. Member for Coventry stated that there was no tattoo mark on the young man's arm, but that statement has never been made until to-night. It certainly was not contained in the affidavits either of Thompson or his solicitor. On the other hand, it has been specifically stated that his arm was examined, and that there was something tattooed or marked on it which was certainly a "W." and something else that looked liked an "F" or a "T." Then the hon. Member for Coventry said suspicion ought to have been aroused by the fact of Thompson being two inches taller than Floyd; but has not a youth been known to grow two inches in height in ten mouths? ["Oh."] Well, I myself have known of such a case, and I can give proof of the fact. Now, I do not say that this young man was rightfully imprisoned. From all the circumstances, it is clear that this young man was imprisoned by mistake, and therefore I have advised the First Lord of the Admiralty that there ought to be no attempt at justification of the illegal detention, and that there is a case for reasonable compensation. But the First Lord of the Admiralty would, I think, be neglectful of his duty if he were to shut his eyes altogether to the conduct of the boy, who by his own action to a great extent led to the mistake which caused his imprisonment Therefore, there is not the least ground for censuring the Government. The House is not now considering whether the strictures of the Court of Queen's Bench were absolutely justified, or whether there was a right return to the writ of habeas corpus, but whether there has been any such conduct on the part of the Admiralty as should induce the House to decline to agree to the report of this Vote, and I think the answer which the House will give to that question will be in the negative.

SIR H. DAVEY (Stockton)

I am only going to say a few words at this late hour; but I would point out that the Attorney General, in the speech he has just made, has absolutely failed to answer the real gravamen of the charge. The charge against Captain Woodward is that he committed Thompson to prison for 90 days absolutely without any evidence whatever against him. Captain Woodward made no inquiries at either of the addresses which were given until after the boy had been let out of prison. I wish the House to understand that as far as the Attorney General's speech is concerned no answer whatever has been made to the charge that Captain Woodward sent the boy to prison without any evidence whatever as to his identity. So far as I know, Captain Woodward had never seen Floyd, but he chose to assume that the prisoner was Floyd, though the boy denied it, and said he was Thompson. Notwithstanding the boy's statement, Captain Woodward sent him to prison for 90 days; and it is perfectly shocking that an officer, be he a captain in the Navy or not, should have power to send a man to gaol for 90 days with hard labour, whether he has evidence of identity or not. Then as to the order of the Court of Queen's Bench. It is not necessary to have a lawyer at one's elbow to know what is the meaning of an order to bring a person into Court. Yet Captain Woodward did not attend the Court on the first occasion.

LORD G. HAMILTON

I said Captain Woodward had been wrong, owing to a technical mistake in regard to procedure.

SIR H. DAVEY

Captain Woodward did not think fit to attend the Court.

LORD G. HAMILTON

He did.

SIR H. DAVEY

Subsequently he did, but not on that occasion. Altogether, I do not know of a more scandalous case of overbearing officialism.

* MR. STAVELEY HILL (Staffordshire, Kingswinford)

There were two remarks in the speech of my hon. and learned Friend who has just sat down which ought to be answered. He states that it was the duty of Captain Woodward to obey a plain order. The communication received by Captain Woodward was a telegram informing him that the Court had been moved to call upon him to show cause why a writ of habeas corpus should not issue, and this, to a sailor, not very intelligible in formation had to be considered side by side with a clear order from his superiors at the Admiralty to send the boy to his regiment. As to evidence, Captain Woodward found that the boy's tattoo marks, age, and other features corresponded with the description given of the man who had deserted. On the 5th of May, 1885, Floyd was 5ft. high, and on the 24th of April, 1888, when he came to man's rating, he had only grown ¾in. Thompson when measured 10 months after that date was 5ft. 2¾in. high. It is said that he could not have grown so much in such a short time. Why, after being 3 months in prison the lad had grown 1¾ in. more. It is all very well to be wise after the event; but had Thompson been brought before any Member of the House, he would probably have been treated in the same way as he had been by Captain Woodward.

The House divided:—Ayes 120; Noes 59.—(Div. List, No. 193.)

Resolution agreed to.