HC Deb 08 January 1894 vol 20 cc1033-4
MR. CONYBEARE (Cornwall, Camborne)

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he can now state the result of his communications with the West Powder Magistrates as to the forfeiture by them of the gun licences of persons charged before them under the Poaching Invention Act; whether the Justices in question have stated, in their reply to his inquiries, that in passing sentence they made no mention of forfeiture of gun licence, but that in the words of the conviction it was stated that both gun and licence were forfeited; whether the Justices are responsible for the words of the conviction; if not, why not; and who is to be held responsible; and whether, in view of the fact that the report of their decision in The West Briton newspaper states that the Chairman did in terms declare the gun licence would be forfeited, and that the accuracy of this report is guaranteed by the reporter who was present in Court and heard the decision declared by him, he will ask the said Justices for some other explanation of their action?

MR. ASQUITH

I can now state the result of my communications. The Justices state that no mention was made of forfeiture of the gun or of the gun licence either in passing sentence or in the words of the conviction. The gun was forfeited by the fact of the conviction without any order from the Magistrates; the licence was not forfeited. The statement as to the licence being forfeited appears to have been a mistake of the clerk in his first report in the case of Willoughby. The Chairman repeats his statement that he said nothing in Court as to the licence being forfeited, and his statement is confirmed by the clerk and by the solicitor for the prosecution.

MR. CONYBEARE

I am sorry to throw any doubt on the bona fides of these gentlemen, but I wish to draw the light hon. Gentleman's attention to a letter I have in my hand from the proprietors of the newspaper in which the report appeared, in which they say that— We have no hesitation in affirming as quite accurate our report of the case referred to. The case was reported by our chief reporter, who is perfectly certain that the Chairman intimated to the defendant that his licence would be forfeited as well as the gun, I wish to ask whether, in view of that fact and of the fact that I have other witnesses who were in Court and confirm this statement, the right hon. Gentleman will intervene?

MR. ASQUITH

At the outset it only amounts to a conflict of evidence as to what actually took place. On the one side there is the Chairman, the clerk, and the solicitor for the prosecution, and on the other we have my hon. Friend's statement of what the reporter says. It is clearly impossible for me, under these circumstances, to interfere.

MR. CONYBEARE

Do I understand the right hon. Gentleman to say the clerk is responsible for the error?

MR. ASQUITH

The only mistake the clerk made was in not accurately recording the form of the conviction. The gun licence was never forfeited at all.