§ Order of the Day for taking into consideration the Report of the Select Committee (made to the House on the 12th instant), respecting John Stinton, a witness, read.
The Earl of Besboroughrose to call the attention of the House to a part of the proceedings before the Committee appointed to inquire into the alleged cases of fraud connected with the Dublin and Galway Railway. It was stated that fraudulent and false names had been signed to the contract deed, and, amongst others, by a person of the name of John Stinton. This appeared to be the case, from the evidence taken before the Committee; and he (the Earl of Besborough) was directed, on the 12th of July, to report the case to the House. On consideration, however, it was thought that this person might make some explanation before the Committee on the Bill with regard to this matter. Such, however, was not the case; he had, therefore, thought it to be his duty to place the matter before the House. Since he had entered the House, doubts had been expressed to him as to whether perjury had been committed or not. The noble Earl then proceeded to read the evidence of John Stinton before this Committee, in which he denied that he had ever passed by any other name in connexion with the Dublin and Galway Railway Company, or 1273 that he had signed the deed of the Company more than once. A Miss Golding proved that Stinton had received letters at her residence, which were directed to a person of the name of Mr. Baldron, and that he had always passed in that name in her presence, and had opened the letters so directed. Stinton afterwards admitted that this was true, but denied that he had signed the deed more than once, or had affixed the name of Baldron to it. He admitted also that such a person as Penton did not exist. Mr. Stanley, a most respectable stockbroker, stated that he had seen Stinton, whom he knew as a jobber, sign the contract deed of the Company three times in one day, and that he had changed his dress on each occasion. This struck him as a remarkable circumstance; he could not, however, state whether this person had affixed another name than that of Stinton. Robert Parish, the porter of Crosby Hall Chambers, swore that he knew Stinton as a bootmaker in the neighbourhood, and that, at his request, he had taken in letters for him directed to Penton, which were always opened by Stinton. No person of the name of Penton ever had chambers at Crosby Hall. These were the facts of the evidence to which he wished more particularly to call attention.
The Lord Chancellorsuggested that the noble Earl should point out the particular parts of the evidence on which he relied as the ground for prosecution.
The Earl of Besboroughhanded a copy of the evidence to the Lord Chancellor, and pointed out some particular passages in it, and then proceeded to read again to the House the passages in the evidence to which he had before alluded. He concluded by stating, that he had given notice of his Motion in the terms, that the Attorney General be directed to prosecute the party; but not being a lawyer, he would wish to leave the course to be pursued to the judgment of some of his noble and learned Friends near him.
Lord Campbellsaid, he would admit that he had not looked into the evidence until after he had come down to the House; but from his experience in criminal prosecutions, he would advise their Lordships to be cautious in adopting any particular course. He had no doubt but that this man Stinton had lied abominably, and that he ought to have been reported to their Lordships; but the question for them to decide was, whether the case admitted of a prosecution for perjury. The witness had told the Committee that he should acknowledge what he had 1274 before told them was false, but he added that he would then tell the truth. In a trial for perjury, the whole of the evidence would be laid before the jury; and the learned Judge would tell them, he had very little doubt, that the prisoner had not committed perjury in the eyes of the law, because in his supplemental answer he denied his false statement previously given, and his true statement was received. This principle of taking the entire evidence as one act was carried so far, that in Chancery causes, where a bill and afterwards a supplemental bill were filed, the answers to both were taken as one answer; and if the respondent denied in his second answer what he had stated in his first, he was not considered in law to be guilty of perjury. The case was clearly one which the Committee were bound to report to the House; but perhaps the course which they ought to have adopted was, to report that the witness had been guilty of equivocation; and then, if the shorthand writer's notes were read at the bar of their Lordships' House, no noble Lord would have hesitated about voting that the witness be committed to Newgate for equivocation; and he (Lord Campbell) would certainly have heartily concurred in such a Motion: but he did not think this was a case in which they could persecute for perjury.
§ Lord Cottenhamsaid that, from what he had heard of the evidence, and the mode in which the witness had explained himself, he confessed he would feel some difficulty in coming to a final decision on the matter; but, if he were not mistaken, he believed the terms of the order which their Lordships would have to make, in a case where a witness had grossly misconducted himself, as this man obviously had done, would leave it to the discretion of the Attorney General to prosecute, if he thought fit so do to. Were the House to give a peremptory order in the matter, it would be tantamount to deciding as Judges in the case without a trial. Under similar circumstances, the Court of Chancery would not take any summary proceedings, but would refer the case to the Attorney General.
Lord Campbellsaid, while he had been Attorney General, several cases similar to the present were referred to him, and in every instance the orders of Parliament were of a peremptory nature. In the case of Stockdale, who was ordered to be prosecuted for a libel on the House of Commons, the Attorney General of the day very likely thought 1275 it a foolish prosecution, hut, from the terms of the order, he was compelled to file the information.
The Earl of Wicklowsaid, there was one point in the case to which he wished to direct the attention of the House. It was, that the Committee had told the witness to take care of what he was about, for if he perjured himself he would be liable to prosecution. No perjury had been committed, he believed, after that; and he thought the caution was intended as an intimation that the House would not prosecute him for what had previously occurred.
§ Lord Monteaglesaid, the Committee had reported on the 12th of July, and now, on the 31st of the month, their Lordships were required to come to a decision respecting the charge contained in that Report. There was no doubt but that the case was one which could not be passed over altogether. The offence was clearly a moral perjury, whether it happened to be a legal perjury or not. It was a perjury for the purpose of accomplishing a fraud, and deceiving their Lordships and the other House of Parliament; and such an offence could not be suffered to rest without any notice being taken of it. There was, however, no doubt, even if the individual were less ingenuous than he appeared to be, that he had had since then sufficient time to take himself out of the country; but after, by the recent decision of their Lordships respecting this Railway Bill (the Dublin and Galway), they had punished innocent persons for the faults of others, it would be contrary to every principle of justice were they now to allow one who was really guilty to go scot free. The course which he would recommend was, that the question should be referred to a Committee upstairs for half an hour, with instructions to report to the House what steps were necessary to be taken.
The Lord Chancellorsaid, he had never seen the evidence until it had been alluded to at the Table. He doubted very much whether they could proceed with a prosecution for perjury, under the circumstances. The witness stated that he had never passed as Baldron; and he afterwards explained what he had meant by that answer in this manner: he said he had often received letters addressed to the name of Baldron; but that he did not think that meant passing by the name. They could scarcely hope to assign perjury on that part of the evidence, with any probability of success. Again, the witness said he did not know 1276 Miss Golding; whereas it appeared afterwards that he had asked her to receive letters for him, and that she was the keeper of a public-house. It did not follow, however, that because he had been in the habit of seeing her standing behind the bar in a public-house, and had requested her to keep letters for him, that he should, therefore, know her name to be Golding. He thought the course suggested by his noble Friend (Lord Monteagle) to be the most judicious one they could take, as they ought to pay that mark of respect to the Report of the Committee, no matter what decision they might find it afterwards necessary to come to.
The Earl of Besboroughsaid, he would beg leave to move that, the Report of the 12th of July be referred to a Select Committee, with instructions to report to the House what steps it would be necessary to take with respect to John Stinton, reported to the House to have been guilty of perjury.
The Lord Chancellorsaid, they should allege on the indictment what the perjury was, and select from the evidence the particular passages on which they relied.
§ Lord Monteaglesaid, it might be supposed out of doors that the Committee had acted unjustly twards this person.
The Lord Chancellorsaid, the fact was quite the reverse. He had been himself of opinion that the witness had committed perjury, for which he could be prosecuted, until he came to look into the evidence.
§ Lord Monteaglesaid, lest any such supposition might exist, he would beg to read two of the questions and answers that had been given as an instance. In No. 405, the witness was asked, "Do you know William Baldron, silk throwster?—No." And again, in No. 489, the question was repeated, "Do you know William Baldron?—I do."
§ Motion agreed to.