HL Deb 31 July 1838 vol 44 cc832-8
The Earl of Haddington

begged leave, pursuant to the notice which he had given a few days since, to state the circumstances connected with the recommendation and appointment of two magistrates in the county of Cromarty, in Scotland, which their Lordships would admit to be as extraordinary as any which had ever been submitted to that House. It would be in the recollection of their Lordships that there was a vacancy in the representation of the county of Ross in the spring of last year, and that there was a sharp contest. At that election an individual named Gibson had been forcibly abducted, in order to prevent him from giving his vote for the Gentleman who now represented that county. There were two persons named, Watson and Smith, who were concerned in that abduction; they inveigled the voter Gibson to the house of one of them, they made him drunk, and carried him away in a state of insensibility, and forced him, despite his struggles, into a post-chaise, in which he was rapidly conveyed to an inn in the country and put to bed; from that place he made his escape and was pursued, but ultimately he got back to Ross in time to give his vote. Now, those two persons, on the recommendaion of the lord-lieutenant or the county, had been appointed justices of the peace for that county. A prosecution had been commenced against those persons—not by the Crown, for the Crown had declined to prosecute, but on what ground he could not conceive—but the person who had been abducted prosecuted them himself, and, that being the case, he of course could not appear as a witness, which he might have done if the Crown had prosecuted. The prosecution was commenced; the case could not be tried till the subsequent August; but, strange to say, pendente lite, the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack had appointed on the recommendation of the lord-lieutenant, those two individuals to be magistrates. One of them was what was there called a hardware merchant, or, in plain English, an ironmonger. The other practised as a surgeon, and had no property. He had heard, that since he gave notice of his motion, the noble and learned Lord had issued a supersedeas. [The Lord Chancellor "No."] Then they were still magistrates; and he was only surprised that the noble and learned Lord had not done so. But, with regard to the result of the prosecution after their appointment as magistrates, the fact was, that whilst the jury was being struck, a proposition was made by the counsel for the defendants to the counsel for the plaintiff, to the effect that the defendants would consent to pay 25l. damages and costs, as if a verdict had been found for the plaintiff for that amount. The issues which were to be tried embodied the facts which he had stated, and by their consenting to a verdict against them for 25l. the defendants admitted the guilt; and yet these men, who had been guilty of that ill-conduct, and of a gross violation of the rights of the subject had been recommended by the lord-lieutenant to be placed on the commission, had been appointed by the Lord Chancellor, and not superseded. That was a most extraordinary case. They had heard of strange cases of appointments of magistrates in Ireland and in England, but he thought that he had now found one that would match them in Scotland. He imputed this to politics and nothing else. He should be guilty of a great want of charity if he were to impute it to anything else; for, after all, bad as that reason might be for such conduct, it was the least bad reason which could be suggested. The lord-lieutenant of the county of Cromarty was a gentleman of family and property, and a strong partisan of the present Government, and therefore he supposed en- joying a greater degree of the confidence of the noble and learned Lord. That noble and learned Lord had hitherto been charged with not paying due deference to the lords-lieutenant of counties: he had certainly no such charge to make. The noble and learned Lord had stated that he was alone responsible; that it was his duty to see proper persons appointed; but he was afraid that the noble and learned Lord had more confidence in some lords-lieutenant than in others; and he only wished that he (the noble and learned Lord) would entertain the same wholesome distrust of Whig lords-lieutenant which he appeared to have of Tory lords-lieutenant. The station of life alone in which these two persons were was objectionable; for though it was true that in Scotland there was no qualification, still persons had usually been appointed pretty much of the same class as the magistrates of England. If the noble and learned Lord had only taken the trouble to inquire into the character of these men, the result must have been that he would have communicated to the lord-lieutenant his astonishment that they were recommended. There was another case which he would mention, on the authority of a letter which he held in his hand, and which had been received by the hon. Member for the county of Ross, Mr. M'Kenzie. It appeared that the lord-lieutenant of the county of Ross was a Conservative; however, in the list of names which he had submitted to the noble and learned Lord he had recommended four persons to be justices of the peace who were law agents. Two of them were Conservatives, and had been magistrates before for some years, but the other two whom he recommended were agents of the opposite party, and these he had described in the list of bankers; notoriously, however, they were law-agents, solicitors or procurators practising in the sheriffs' courts. Now what had been done with that list? The two who had been magistrates before were struck off, and the other two were put on. The noble and learned Lord had struck off the two Conservative law-agents, and put on the two Whig law-agents. He would not state the names of the parties, because his object was to call the attention of the noble and learned Lord to the case, and the noble and learned Lord would have ample means of investigating it. The appointment of those law-agents had produced an impres- sion that all the law required was, that the solicitors or procurators in the sheriffs' courts should not sit on the bench for the county in which they practised; but it was right that that erroneous impression should be corrected. He certainly began under the firm impression that the noble and learned Lord had issued a supersedeas, and he had intended to offer that as a reason for not making any motion, as his object would then have been answered; but as he now found that that was not the case he must make a motion. Tie therefore moved that a copy of the last commission of the peace be laid on the table.

The Lord Chancellor

said, that he had never heard a more complete proof of the impartiality of a lord-lieutenant than that afforded by the noble Earl. Under the provisions of the Act of Parliament, which he held in his hands, no solicitor or procurator practising in the inferior Courts could be a justice of the peace in the counties of Scotland. That was the law which he was bound to obey; but when, in the exercise of his office, he came to look over the lists of names he found that in many lists there had been magistrates who by that Act were disqualified; it was his duty to correct that error, and the names were therefore omitted. But it appeared, that the lord-lieutenant of Ross-shire was a Conservative, and, of course, impartial; but he was more; he was not only impartial, but he was very partial to the other side. The statement of the noble Earl was, that there were four persons in the list—two Whigs and two Torie. The two Whigs were described as bankers; but, unfortunately, they were procurators. The two Tories were described in such a way as to lead any one to suppose that they were not qualified. Looking, therefore, at the list, his attention was immediately drawn to their description, and, of course, he struck out the two who appeared to be disqualified. Such was the impartiality of the lord-lieutenant, that he had marked his own friends as disqualified: but the Whigs he had protected from detection, because he described them as bankers, and bankers were not disqualified. But if, at the present time, there were two procurators or solicitors in the commission, they, of course, were disqualified. As to the other case, assuming the statement of the noble earl to be correct; nobody could entertain a doubt that those two individuals ought not to remain in the commission. But then it was equally clear that no man in the commission of the peace should be struck out without having an opportunity of giving an explanation of his own conduct; and yet the noble Earl was surprised that he had not issued a supersedeas without communicating with these individuals at all. He should have been guilty of great injustice if he had done so. In the list handed to him those two person had been described as George Gordon Smith, surgeon, and William Watson, merchant. As to their situation in life, he understood that, in the northern parts of Scotland, they were under the necessity of appointing that description of persons because others were not to be found. All he knew was, that the latter of these two persons had been recommended to him as a merchant; but what that word might signify in the language of that country he had not the advantage of knowing. After he had received that list, with a letter in the usual form, he had communicated with a gentleman connected with that part of Scotland on the subject, and he had returned the list to him without any observation as to those particular names. From that time till the 26th of July the matter had not been brought to his attention. There had been a discussion in the House of Commons last year on the occurrence in question; but he had never connected that discussion with the magistrates whom he had appointed. But the subject having been brought to his attention, he had written to the lord-lieutenant of the county, stating the representations which had been made to him respecting the conduct of the two magistrates, expressing his regret at their recommendation, if it were true, and requesting information as to the truth of those representations. In answer to that letter he had received one from the lord-lieutenant, in which he stated, that he had written to the two magistrates, requesting them to furnish him with any grounds for sustaining their appointment; and also to the agent by whom the compromise had been effected. That letter enclosed a statement, in which the lord-lieutenant said, that Smith was a medical man, and Watson a retail hardware dealer—termed, in the provincial phrase, "a merchant;" that persons in Scotland were recommended to that situation, whose rank was very different from what would be considered suitable in England; and that the former lists for the counties of Ross and Cromarty, proved that statement; that the lord-lieutenant had certainly heard that these persons had been engaged in some irregular practices at the election; that he had heard statements and counter-statements, into the truth of which he had not inquired; that he had also heard of a civil action having been commenced against them; but that as the Lord Advocate had not thought proper to prosecute them, and the House of Commons had refused to address the Crown on the subject, he did not feel it his duty to expunge their names. He was himself, therefore, free from blame for the part which he had taken in the matter hitherto; but now he would say a word as to his duty for the future. It was to be remembered, that to strike a man's name out of the commission was an act inflicting deep censure on a man's conduct: it required that a case should be made out, for it was passing sentence against him, and that he could not do without communicating directly with the individuals. He had heard of the matter only on the 26th; the lord-lieutenant had told him that he had put the case in the course of investigation; and he should wait for the result of that investigation, in order that he might be better able to frame the questions which he should afterwards put to the individuals themselves. He should then hear what they had to say in their defence, and upon the result of that inquiry his decision must depend. He wished now to appeal to the noble Earl whether it was expedient or beneficial to bring these matters into public discussion whilst the inquiry was going on. If an action were pending, it would be thought highly improper to bring the merits of an action into discussion; and, in fact, these persons were on their trial whether they should or should not suffer the disgrace of having their names struck out from the commission of the peace. If that were the object of the noble Earl, and if it had pleased the noble Earl to communicate his information to him, he would have paid the greatest respect to that communication, and would have immediately acted upon it. It was always most desirable to pursue that course, when the object could be attained by a communication with a public officer. He had now stated all he knew, and the course which he intended to pursue; and he need only further assure the noble Lord, that he had equal faith in the impartiality of lords lieutenant of both political parties.

The Earl of Haddington

said, that he had called the attention of the noble and learned Lord to the case of the law agents in the county of Ross for the purpose of inquiry; but he had made no charge whatever against the noble and learned Lord. The noble and learned Lord had complained of his bringing the matter forward whilst the individuals were on their trial; but he must remind the noble and learned Lord that their trial had passed. He held in his hands the issues which were about to be tried, where the defendants consented to have a verdict pass against them with 25l. damages. Could there be the smallest doubt that the parties had thereby admitted themselves guilty of the offence? But, further, a prosecution for libel had been instituted on the part of the two defendants in that former action, and that also was to have been tried; but they acted on their own discretion entirely and on no proposition from the other party in abandoning it. With all these things on his mind, he should have been unwilling to have allowed such a case to pass unnoticed; but he would not then longer detain their Lordships.

Motion withdrawn.