§ MR. CONYBEARE (Cornwall, Camborne)I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he can now state the legal position of the Magistrates of the West Powder Bench, who, in the cases brought before them on the 26th November last, unlawfully confiscated the gun licences of the defendants Richard Varcoe, Richard Hore, and Frank Willoughby: whether such illegality invalidates the rest of the sentences 101 imposed by them; what remedy or redress have the defendants against the Magisterial injustice of which they have been the victims; whether he can suggest any means by which the Cornwall County Magistrates may receive instruction in the law they are appointed to administer.; whether he will call the attention of the Lord Chancellor to these cases with a view to his adding to the Bench gentlemen with a, due knowledge of the law: and whether, as there is reason to believe that similar miscarriages of justice have been committed on numerous other occasion, he will make further inquiry into the operation of the Poaching Prevention Act, with a view to introducing an amending Bill next year?
§ Mr. ASQUITH(1.) The Justices in passing sentence made no mention of forfeiture, but left that to the operation of the law. Consequently the gun was forfeited, but not the licence. But it would appear that in the words of the conviction it was stated that both were forfeited. The mistake will be corrected. (2.) The sentence is not invalidated. (3.) Under these circumstances, the other questions do not appear to arise.
§ MR. CONYBEAREOn this question of licences I want to draw the attention of the right hon. Gentleman to the statement of the Chairman—[cries of"Order!"]—who told the defendants that on the next occasion they had better carry their licences with them and show them to the policeman who might ask for it. That statement could only have been made with a view to the forfeiture of the licence. In the second place, I want to know whether the licence has yet been given up: and, if so, have any steps been taken to see that they are delivered?
§ MR. ASQUITHI am not: aware that the Chairman made the statement in question. As to the licence, it has probably been given up—at least, I hope it has been. I am sure there will be no unavoidable delay.
§ MR. CONYBEAREI beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that on the 25th November, at the West Powder Petty Sessions, the Magistrates, Messrs. Polwhele, Cants-Wilson, G. J. Smith, and Hitchins, fined Richard Varcoe, of St. Agnes, 10s. and 18s. 6d. costs, and in addition forfeited his gun licence and gun; whether 102 he is aware that Varcoe was charged with coming from land where it was suspected that he had been in search of game, and that no evidence was produced in support of this charge except the bare suspicion of one policeman; that Varcoe, being challenged to produce his gun licence, offered to do so if the policeman would accompany him to his house; that on the way thither the policeman insisted on searching Varcoe; that on the evidence of two witnesses he beat Varcoe with his staff, and, seizing him by the throat, tore open his collar and shirt and threw him to the ground; that the gun when seized by the constable was still loaded, and had not been fired for the day; and that Varcoe turned out his pockets in the presence of the constable and several other witnesses, who can testify that they were all empty of game; whether a policeman has any right to use such violence upon mere suspicion against a person whom he merely meets on the public highway; whether he will cause inquiry to be made with a view to the remission of the penalties imposed, and the return to Varcoe of his licence and gun; whether, in connection with the same case, a weak old man of 70, named Francis Harris, of St. Agnes, without a blot on his character, was charged with wilfully obstructing the policeman by stepping between him and Varcoe in order to save the boy from the constable's blows, and that he was fined 10s. and 9s. costs, although the chairman, Mr. Carus-Wilson, stated in imposing that penalty,
You did it in ignorance. Had you known you were doing wrong, you would not have done it;and whether he will direct that the penalty shall be, under these circumstances, remitted?
§ MR. ASQUITH(1.) The amount of the penalty is correctly stated in the question. (2.) I am informed that the police constable in question heard a gun fired and saw Varcoe get over a hedge into a lane find proceed in the direction of a plantation; that on the police constable following Varcoe first walked and then ran away; that the police constable, overtaking him, asked him for his gun licence, and that Varcoe replied by saying, "If you want to see my licence you must take a walk along with me;" that the constable sus- 103 pected Varcoe of coming from land where he had been in pursuit of game, and took him by the coat for the purpose of searching him; that Varcoe then caught him by the throat, and in the scuffle that ensued both fell to the ground; in the course of the struggle the policeman did strike Varcoe with his truncheon on the arm; it is a fact that the gun was loaded when taken from the prisoner, but there was no evidence to show it had not been fired that day. (3.) The Statute 25 & 26 Vict. c. 114 gives a constable the right of searching on the highway any person whom he may have good cause to suspect, and to seize and detain any gun found upon him, and therefore he is justified in using such force as may be necessary for the purpose. (4.) Except as to the forfeiture of the licence, there appears to be no sufficient ground for reversing the decision of the Magistrates. The defendant might have appealed if he had thought fit. (5.) The Justices' report that it was not to save Varcoe from blows, but to prevent the constable from overtaking him and recovering his helmet that Harris intervened. The chairman pointed out that the Justices could inflict a fine of £5, but in consideration of Harris not knowing he was doing wrong a fine of 10s. and costs only was imposed. (6.) On the subject of the forfeiture of the licence I am in communication with the Justices.
§ MR. CONYBEAREIs the right hon. Gentleman aware that it appears from the evidence that the man walked along for half a mile quite peaceably with the constable, and that the latter suddenly seized Varcoe by the neck and threw him to the ground in order to search him for game. As I have in my possession the signed statement of two witnesses, one of whom was working on the land in question—[Cries of "Order!"]—will the right hon. Gentleman reconsider the case?
§ MR. CONYBEAREI only want the right hon. Gentleman to assist in this matter. I do not wish to transgress your ruling. I have two witnesses—[Cries of "Order!"]—and I want to know—[Renewed cries of"Order!"]—hon. Gentlemen have had their turn during the past 104 hour—I want the right hon. Gentleman to tell me whether he will take into consideration the further evidence I have obtained on this subject; and whether, in spite of the fact that these men, not knowing the law, have allowed the time for appeal to go by, he will allow me to bring the matter before him?
§ MR. ASQUITHI cannot undertake to alter the decision which the Justices arrived at on a question of fact; but, of course, if any facts come to light which have only been disclosed since the trial, I will consider them.
§ MR. CONYBEAREIs the right hon. Gentleman aware that every one of the Magistrates who tried this case is a Tory and a game preserver? [Cries of "Order!"]
§ MR. J. G. TALBOTI rise to ask if such a question is in Order?
§ MR. CONYBEAREWhat I desire to know is whether the right hon. Gentleman will bring these cases before the Lord Chancellor, with a view to seeing whether the Lord Chancellor will not put at least one or two Liberal Magistrates on the Board?
§ MR. STOREY (Sunderland)Arising out of that question I wish to ask whether, if similar cases from every part of the country are put before him, he will not be inclined to make some change in the law under which a policeman can, as it seems, stop any civilian on the highway and search him violently at his own sweet will?
§ MR. ASQUITHWith regard to this particular case I do not see that justice has not substantially been done, but I think the question which the hon. Member for Sunderland raises is worthy of consideration.
§ MR. CONYBEAREWill the right hon. Gentleman make further inquiries as to the working of the Poaching Prevention Act and oblige me with a Return as to the convictions under it?
§ MR. ASQUITHIf the hon. Gentleman will give notice I shall have no objection to the presentation of such a Return.
§ MR. CONYBEAREI will give notice; and I will also bring in a Bill to amend the present Act.
MR. GIBSON BOWLESMay I ask whether the same rights of seizure 105 and search are not exercised under the Fishery Districts Act, and whether that Act ought not to be amended as much as the other?
§ [No answer was returned.]