Sitting of 9 August 1872

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILL—Withdrawn—Municipal Privileges (Ireland)* [101].
The House met at half after Three of the clock.

Ordered, That the Standing Orders of this House, as amended, be printed. [No. 407.]—(Mr. Bonham-Carter.)

LIABILITY OF BRITISH VESSELS IN FOREIGN WATERS.—QUESTION.
MR. GRAVESasked the President of the Board of Trade, in reference to a Memorial from the shipowners of the United Kingdom, on the subject of the liability of British vessels in foreign waters, and presented to that Board in May last, What steps have been taken by Government in the matter; and,
836
whether any recent communications have passed to or from the Government of the United States on the subject?
MR. A. PEEL, in reply, said, that a Memorial on the important subject to which his hon. Friend referred had been presented on behalf of the shipowners of the United Kingdom in May last, in consequence of which representations were made by the Department to the Foreign Office. On the 31st of May the Government forwarded the Memorial to Her Majesty's Representative in the United States, with a request that he would lay it before the authorities in that country, and urge on them the importance of as speedily as possible amending the law of merchant shipping in this respect. No communication on this point had since been received from Sir Edward Thornton, nor was it known what precise representations he had addressed to the United States Government; but he could assure his hon. Friend that the matter should not be lost sight of, but should be pressed with all the influence at the command of the Government.

FRANCE—REVISION OF THE TREATY OF COMMERCE, 1860.

  QUESTION.
  MR. GRAVESasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether, in the event of the French Government resuming negotiations for the revision of the French Treaty of 1860, care will be taken that British shipping will be put on "the most favoured nation" footing?
  VISCOUNT ENFIELD: Her Majesty's Government in any negotiation with France will do their best to provide for the shipping as well as the commercial interests of this country; but as no such negotiation is now on foot, it is, of course, impossible to state what will be the result of any communications with the French Government on those matters.

RELIGIOUS SERVICES IN THE ARMY

  QUESTION.
  SIR WILFRID LAWSONasked the First Lord of the Admiralty, Whether there is anything in the regulations of the Royal Marines which prohibits a member of that service taking part in religious services when off duty; and,

  837
  whether it has been brought under his notice that a corporal at Gosport has been sentenced by Court Martial to eighty-four days' imprisonment, with hard labour, to be degraded to the rank of a private, and to lose one conduct badge, for taking part in religious services against his Colonel's wishes?
  MR. GOSCHEN, in reply, said, there was nothing in the regulations of the Royal Marines prohibiting members of that service from taking part in religious services, whether on or off duty. Since the hon. Member put his Question on the Paper yesterday he had inquired into the facts, and found that the corporal in question was tried not for taking part in religious services, but for repeated disobedience of express orders given him by the colonel of the regiment. The sentence was correctly stated in the terms of the Question, but 77 out of the 84 days' imprisonment had been remitted. [Sir WILFRID LAWSON: Might I ask what the orders were?] I have not seen the proceedings of the court martial, and therefore I can only give a general answer to the Question, without pledging myself to the accuracy of every detail. But I have seen a letter from the colonel of the regiment, and I have had a letter placed in my hands stating the matter from the point of view of the men. The religious services referred to were preaching in the street, and the colonel, taking the view which I believe is universally taken in the Army and Navy, that soldiers and sailors are not permitted to preach publicly in uniform in the streets, sent for the two corporals and three men who had been acting in this manner, and pointed out to them that they should not do so. The colonel added that he appreciated their desire to do good to their fellow men; but suggested that there was ample field for the missionary labour which they had undertaken, in dealing with their comrades in the tap-rooms and elsewhere. He spoke to them repeatedly on this point, and three of the men fell in with his views, but the other two repeated the street preaching, though called in and remonstrated with, he believed, on two or three occasions. At last, they received the order that street-preaching was to be discontinued; and the men apparently disobeyed this order deliberately, in order to test the question. Under these circumstances, the authorities felt they
  838
  had no alternative but to deal with the question as one of discipline, if they were to maintain discipline in the Army and Navy at all.
  SIR WILFRID LAWSONasked, whether he was to understand that the regulations permitted soldiers and sailors to preach in tap-rooms?
  MR. GOSCHENsaid, he was sorry the hon. Baronet seemed to have misunderstood his explanation. The colonel saw these men were anxious to do good to their fellows; and he pointed out to them that there was a great deal of drunkenness and evil of various kinds going on, to the checking of which they might turn their attention, without its entailing any necessity for their preaching in the streets in uniform. The colonel had no desire whatever to interfere with their exertions, provided they did not infringe the one point on which he insisted.

IRELAND—FLOODS IN THE SHANNON VALLEY.—QUESTION.
MAJOR TRENCHasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether, considering the great damage yearly inflicted by the floods in the Shannon Valley, and the bar that the present condition of that river is to the undertaking of drainage works in the vast low-lying districts affected, he will take the matter into his consideration during the Recess, with a view to the re-introduction of a proposition for dealing with the evils complained of?
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER, in reply, said, he should be very glad to introduce a measure on that subject when he saw a probability of carrying it; but the reception which such a measure met with five years ago was not encouraging.

CULTIVATION OF THE TOBACCO PLANT IN GREAT BRITAIN AND IRELAND.

  QUESTION.
  MR. CALLANasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether he is prepared to recommend some modification of the total and unconditional prohibition of the growth of the tobacco plant in Great Britain and Ireland, and permit its culture in such quantities and under such restrictions as will facilitate and insure the collection of whatever Duty may be imposed on its cultivation, either

  839
  by acreage tax, or on gross amount of produce yielded?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER, in reply, said, he had carefully considered that question, and was sorry to say that in justice to a revenue of £7,000,000, he could not promise to take any steps in the direction which the Question indicated.

IRELAND—FISHERIES.—QUESTION.
MR. BUTTasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland, If he will state the nature and amount of the fund which he expects to make available for the purpose of aid to the Irish Fisheries?
THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON, in reply, said, the fund to which he referred the other day was the balance of a fund raised for the relief of distress in Ireland in 1822, which amounted to about £30,000. The use of a certain portion of the fund was restricted by Act of Parliament to certain counties. Some of them were maritime counties, and it was considered by the Inspectors of Fisheries that without legislation, part of the fund might be applied for the purpose referred to in those counties. There were, however, a number of other maritime counties for which, under present circumstances, the fund was not available; but the Commissioners were of opinion that a measure might be introduced to enable the Treasury to use the balance of the fund for that purpose. In all the Commissioners thought that about £20,000 might be made available.

IRELAND—REVISION OF THE LIST OF MAGISTRACY.—QUESTION.
MR. CALLANasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland, with reference to the answer of the Chief Secretary on the 18th March 1870, Whether the Revision of the List of the Irish Magistracy, "with a view of clearing the List of the names of the persons who ought not to be there, or who had ceased to be able to act," which was then stated to be "yet going on," has been completed; and, if so, has any effect been given to the said revision in any one county in Ireland; if not completed, what progress, if any, has been made in such revision; whether any effect has been given to the opinion of the then Chief Secretary, "That the Government should use their
840
influence" to have advantage taken of "all fair and proper opportunities to reduce the inequalities" then admitted to exist in the undue disproportion of Protestants to Catholics on the magisterial bench; and, whether the attention of the Irish Executive has been drawn to the character of all the appointments to the Magistracy for the County of Louth since 1867, and the exclusion of Catholics from the magisterial bench, including, amongst others, of a Catholic Peer, the son of the immediate predecessor of Lord Rathdonnel in the Lieutenancy, and one of the largest landed proprietors in the County?
THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON, in reply, said, that as the Question had appeared on the Paper only that morning, he had been unable to obtain information from Dublin on the subject, and was, therefore, unable to answer the Question.
MR. CALLANsaid, he would put the Question to-morrow, and if not answered then, would put it early next Session.
THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTONsaid, he would be unable to give an answer to-morrow.
MR. CALLANstated that the Lord Chancellor of Ireland was now in London.

ROME—DIPLOMATIC RELATIONS WITH THE POPE.—QUESTION.
MR. HOLTasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, as he has stated that Mr. Clarke Jervoise is not accredited to the Pope, To inform the House what position that gentleman holds at Rome in connection with the Foreign Office; what are the duties which he is there established to discharge; and, whether Mr. Clarke Jervoise has received any and what general instructions for his guidance from Her Majesty's Government?
VISCOUNT ENFIELD: Mr. Jervoise has no definite position at Rome, but would report to the Foreign Office any information which might be communicated to him directly or indirectly in regard to the relation of the Papal Government with foreign Powers. Beyond this, he has no general instructions, and his duties, as so defined, are understood, though not prescribed in writing.
MR. VANCE: I wish to ask whether the Pope has any diplomatic agent in

841
this country on the same terms as Mr. Jervoise is at Rome?
VISCOUNT ENFIELD: Not that I am aware of.

BRITISH TRAVELLERS IN BELGIUM.

  QUESTION.
  MR. VANCEasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether his attention has been called to the frequent complaints made by British Subjects of the robbery of their luggage on the Belgian Railways, and whether any remonstrance has been addressed to the proper authorities on the subject?
  VISCOUNT ENFIELD, in reply, said, he had seen two or three letters in The Times on the subject; but as no complaints had been made to the Foreign Office by any aggrieved traveller, the Secretary of State had not thought it his duty to interfere in the matter, or to call the attention of the Belgian authorities to the subject.

NAVY—ADMIRALTY ORDERS—H. M. S. "AURORA."—QUESTION.
MR. RUSSELL GURNEY (for Lord GEORGE HAMILTON)asked the First Lord of the Admiralty, Whether it was by Admiralty Order that the Captain of Her Majesty's Ship "Aurora" had called upon the officers of that ship to state whether they had communicated to the newspapers any statements as to the ship having dry rot in her timbers, or whether such an order has been issued on the sole authority of the Captain; and, if an order of such a character is in accordance with the usages of the service?
MR. GOSCHEN, in reply, said, that a little reflection would have assured the noble Lord. It was highly improbable such an order was issued, and as a matter of fact no such order was issued by the Admiralty, either by himself or by his authority, or by any one else's. Had such an order been issued it would have been contrary to the usages of the service. The captain had been required to make a report with regard to certain allegations made in the newspapers, but nothing further.

INDIA—MR. DENIS FITZPATRICK.

  MOTION FOR PAPERS.
  GENERAL FORESTERrose to call the attention of the House to the case of
  842
  Mr. Denis Fitzpatrick, who in 1864 was Judge of the Small Cause Court at Delhi, and Agent to the Government of India, in defending two suits brought against them in the Deputy Commissioner's Court at Delhi by the Representatives of the Begum Sombre; and to move an Address for a Copy of the Record in the "Badshapore Suit," or so much of it as relates to Mr. Denis Fitzpatrick, and which will be found at pages 28 and 53 of the Record, being the depositions of the collector and magistrate of Meerut, and of Mr. Fitzpatrick in the Court of the Deputy Commissioner at Delhi. He wished, at the outset, to set himself right with regard to the Question which stood in his name on the Notice Paper last Tuesday, and which was asked by the hon. Member for York (Mr. J. Lowther). His reason for putting the Question on the Paper was, that he found precedents for it during the last and present Parliaments. For instance, the hon. Member for Windsor (Mr. Eykyn) asked a question with regard to a Mr. Cook; the hon. Member for Norfolk (Mr. Bagge) also asked a Question with regard to Mr. Watkin; and a Question was put as to the case of Mr. Churchward, he believed by the hon. Member for Waterford (Mr. Osborne). He understood that the Under Secretary of State said the other day that this was not such a case as should be brought before the House, inasmuch as but for the protection afforded by the privileges enjoyed by a Member of Parliament he would have become liable to an action-at-law for defamation of character in stating the case. He believed, however, that he had been perfectly right; but he, of course, bowed to the decision of the Speaker, and that was his reason for bringing the matter forward on the present occasion in the form of a Motion. Mr. Denis Fitzpatrick, the gentleman in question, who was in the year 1864 Judge of the Small Cause Court at Delhi, and in that year appointed by the Government of Delhi to defend two suits brought against them in the Deputy Commissioner's Court at Delhi by the representatives of the Begum Sombre, obtained possession of certain books of record from the office of the collector and magistrate of Meerut. When the said Mr. Denis Fitzpatrick returned the books it was found that some of the letters and documents were missing

  843
  which were of material importance in the suit of the plaintiffs. He was subpoenaed, and when placed in the witness-box declined answering several questions on the ground of privilege, as would appear from the evidence. The collector at Meerut, who was then called by subpœna, and being a Government servant was an unwilling witness, admitted that the documents had been abstracted from the books while they were in the possession of Mr. Fitzpatrick. Instead of being dismissed the service for tampering with the public records, Mr. Fitzpatrick had been continued up to the present time as Government agent in respect of these suits, and had for three years been superintending them in this country at a salary of £1,600 a-year. [The right hon. and gallant Member proceeded to read the lengthy evidence to which he had referred, with the object of supporting the statements he had made.] The agent of the plaintiffs went to Meerut to inspect the letter-book of public documents; but soon after he arrived the Government heard of the circumstance, and ordered the collector and magistrate at Meerut not to allow the agent to look into the book. That was how they came to know that these letters were missing. Yet the agent of the Government had taken the books to Delhi, and there removed from public documents letters which were essential in the cause. If this was justice in India, it was not justice in England; and he thought this was a subject which he had every right to bring before the House of Commons. He begged to move the Resolution of which he had given Notice.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, that She will be graciously pleased to give directions that there be laid before this House, a Copy of the Record in the 'Badshapore Suit,' or so much of it as relates to Mr. Denis Fitzpatrick, and which will be found at pages 28 and 53 of the Record, being the depositions of the collector and magistrate of Meerut, and of Mr. Fitzpatrick in the Court of the Deputy Commissioner at Delhi."—(General Forester.)
  MR. GRANT DUFFsaid, of course, there was not the slightest objection to giving the Papers, if the right hon. and gallant Member would move for them, along with a copy of a letter from Mr. Denis Fitzpatrick to the Under Secretary of State for India dated the
  844
  8th of August, 1872, which supplied the shortest answer to what had been just said. Mr. Fitzpatrick stated that the claim of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman (General Forester) as representing the Sombre family in the Badshapore suit, to property valued altogether at about £500,000, was dismissed by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council by an order which was made final a few days ago. He (Mr. Fitzpatrick) was employed throughout the proceedings, both in India and this country, by the Government of India in its behalf, and of course had exerted himself to the best of his ability to refute what he believed, and what had been held by the highest tribunal, to be an utterly unfounded claim. Having read in the newspapers the proceedings of the House of Commons on Tuesday, he hastened to furnish particulars of the matter. The allegation that he obtained possession of certain documents at the collector's office at Meerut in some improper manner, and without proper authority, was a most unfounded charge, to which he gave the most emphatic contradiction. The papers being Official Correspondence were, under the orders of the Government of India, whose property they were, removed by him from the collector of Meerut's office, taken to Delhi, and sent to the Government at Calcutta in the ordinary course of his duty, in preparing the defence of the suit. The removal was made with the knowledge and permission of Mr. Quinton, the officiating collector; and the notion of anything like a private removal of it was absolutely precluded by the large number of letters and records. Mr. Fitzpatrick thus explained how the complaint now put forward by the right hon. and gallant Gentleman (General Forester) appeared to have been suggested—
  "Mr. Quinton, the officiating collector of Meerut, by whom the papers had been made over to me as the representative of the Government in these suits, had left for Oude, and had been succeeded by Mr. Forbes before the suit came on for hearing. To this latter officer General Forester's agents applied for copies of some of the very documents that had been removed. He, finding that these documents were not forthcoming, appears to have been seized with a suspicion (which any district officer in India will understand) that they had been abstracted by some one hostile to Government. To this suspicion he seems to have given expression, and, as might be expected (especially in a case in which we were denouncing

  845
  the documents relied on by General Forester and the Sombres as forgeries), the thing was retorted on us. All, however, was cleared up at the trial. The charge never got beyond the stage of vague insinuation, supported by pretty strong abuse of the Government and its officers. It was deemed unworthy of the slightest notice in the two lower Courts, and was expressly withdrawn by General Forester's counsel (Mr. Newton) before the conclusion of the arguments in the Chief Court of the Punjab."
  The hon. Gentleman concluded by saying he should have no objection to the Motion, provided it were so amended as to include this letter from Mr. Fitzpatrick.
  Amendment proposed,
  To add, at the end of the Question, the words "together with a Copy of a Letter from Mr. Denis Fitzpatrick to the Under Secretary of State for India, dated the 8th August 1872."—(Mr. Grant Duff.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there added."
  MR. NEWDEGATEsaid, he was quite sure that the House would be gratified that the right hon. and gallant Member for Wenlock, who was so well known in the House, had availed himself, without delay, of the Speaker's suggestion to bring the subject, by Motion, before the House. He thought the right hon. and gallant Gentleman was entitled to the information which his Motion had elicited from the Government; and, without expressing any opinion whatsoever on the subject-matter of the case, he (Mr. Newdegate) begged to thank the right hon. and gallant Gentleman for having vindicated the forms of the House, which were so essential to a right understanding of the business that might be brought before it.
  MR. SERJEANT SHERLOCKsaid, the official alluded to in the Question put by the hon. Member for York (Mr. Lowther) some days ago ought to be greatly obliged to the right hon. and gallant Member for Wenlock (General Forester) for having elucidated the subject, and shown how entirely groundless the charges suggested by the Question were. It was impossible to read the original Question without drawing from it the inference that Mr. Denis Fitzpatrick, as a Government official, had abstracted certain Government documents, and that he had, nevertheless, been continued in office by the Government. The Question conveyed an imputation against Mr. Fitzpatrick; and against the Government. As explained, that charge ap-
  846
  peared now to be nothing more than that he, as an official of Government, had removed documents from the custody of one branch of the Government to another; that he did so with the full knowledge of the Government; that he did so in the discharge of his duty; that the allegations which were made by rumour and surmise by those representing the right hon. and gallant Member for Wenlock during the pendency of the legal proceedings in India instituted by the right hon. and gallant Member, were withdrawn by the counsel of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman in open Court; and that they ought never to have been renewed here in any shape. No one ought to be more obliged to the right hon. and gallant Gentleman than Mr. Fitzpatrick.
  GENERAL FORESTER, in replying, said his agent who went to look at the books was forbidden to look at them. How many letters were taken from the books it was impossible to say. An order from the Government prevented his agent from going into the whole subject.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Main Question, as amended, put, and agreed to.
  Resolved, That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, that She will be graciously pleased to give directions that there be laid before this House a Copy of the Record in the "Badshapore Suit," or so much of it as relates to Mr. Denis Fitzpatrick, and which will be found at pages 28 and 53 of the Record, being the depositions of the collector and magistrate of Meerut, and of Mr. Fitzpatrick in the Court of the Deputy Commissioner at Delhi; together with a Copy of a Letter from Mr. Denis Fitzpatrick to the Under Secretary of State for India, dated the 8th day of August 1872.

TICHBORNE v. LUSHINGTON—PROSECUTION OF THE "CLAIMANT" FOR PERJURY.—MOTION FOR PAPERS.
MR. WHALLEYrose to move for a
"Copy of all Applications made to the Secretary of State for the Home Department or to the Solicitor of the Treasury as to providing the means for the defendant in the case of The Queen v. Castro, alias Tichborne to bring forward witnesses in his defence, and for such information as to the evidence that will be brought forward in support of the prosecution as the defendant would have been entitled to receive if he had been committed for trial by any other process than that of the Order of a Judge at Nisi Prius; together with the Replies that have been made to such Applications."

847
The hon. Gentleman said, the Correspondence he asked for consisted of four or five letters written by himself to the Solicitor to the Treasury, arising out of certain questions which had been put as to the notorious Tichborne case. He might say that the application was made at the suggestion of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Memorials from various towns had been signed by a great number of persons, the object of the memorials being that Parliament should afford to this defendant—Tichborne—the same information as to the existing charges against him as would have been afforded to a man who had been committed to prison by the order of a magistrate. Application had also been made that certain provision should be made out of the public funds for the production of this man's witnesses and for the conduct of his defence. In consequence of the statement made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, to the effect that the funds contributed by the public might be expected to provide the means of Tichborne's defence, the only alternative left was to "stump" the country. ["Oh!"] Yes; this unfortunate man was obliged to "stump" the country, or to appeal to the country—whichever hon. Gentlemen liked best—in order that, as an Englishman, he might have what every Englishman had a right to have, but which this Englishman had not obtained—a fair trial. He was glad to hear that the hon. and learned Member for Taunton (Mr. James) was instructed—["Oh, oh!"]—or at least was prepared to reply to his (Mr. Whalley's) observations. He charged the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Taunton, and he charged every other Member of that House—["Oh!"]—yes, he charged the hon. and learned Member for Taunton, and he charged every other Member of the House—["Order!"]—he charged them all with this—that they should vote upon this Motion without having made up their minds upon the merits of this case, so far as they were called upon, on the authority of the Attorney General, to provide him with money in the public name to prosecute this man Tichborne, De Castro, or whoever he might be. It was in that spirit he (Mr. Whalley) had "stumped" the country. [Ironical cheers.] Yes, and he would go from door to door, from one end of the country to the other, and beg money for this man
848
so as to ensure him a fair trial. Well, with all the eloquence of the hon. and learned Member for Taunton, and with all the dissent of the House, nothing should prevent him from trying to ensure this unfortunate and ill-used man—[Laughter]—yes, this ill-used and badly-treated man—a fair trial. The Attorney General, in a manner altogether unprecedented, had come to that House charged with this responsibility—that his own character as a barrister was involved in the issue of this trial, and he had in a manner, pledged his own personal veracity and opinion, quite out of the course of ordinary practice, that the man was not Tichborne, but was "this, that, and the other." The Attorney General came to that House, and told them they were to provide him with whatever sum he wished—probably over £100,000—in order to carry on the prosecution. Now, having no greater interest in the matter than that he (Mr. Whalley) possessed property close by the Tichborne estates in Hampshire, he was not satisfied with this state of things. The House was, to a certain extent, voluntarily committed to the prosecution of this man. He pledged himself in the most solemn manner that there was not a shadow of doubt in his mind—that he was as satisfied as that he was a man who had an existence, that this man—this man who was to be prosecuted by the Attorney General, and at the expense of the country—was the Sir Roger Tichborne whom he professed to be. Now, he asked any Member of that House, whether the information with respect to this man which was before the country—and he was now speaking of the result of personal investigation—did not consist of a month's speech from the Attorney General, filled in by certain facts with respect to certain tattoo marks? ["Question!"] He was keeping to the Question, and he now asked whether the refusal of the letters of which he now asked a copy was not an abandonment—a virtual abandonment of that tattoo evidence. ["No, no!"] Oh, yes, yes. ["No, no!" and"Order!"] But I say it is. [An hon. MEMBER: Surely this is not the Question.] What he wanted to demonstrate was that either the "tattoo marks" evidence was conclusive, or, if not, that the whole affair disclosed one of the most frightful and abominable conspiracies which had ever taken place in this, or, perhaps, in any other country.
MR. MUNDELLArose to Order, and asked whether that House should he occupied in going into the merits of the Tichborne case?
MR. SPEAKERsaid, the Question was one entirely for the House, and not for the Chair.
MR. WHALLEYsaid, the Attorney General had asked the House of Commons for money to carry on the prosecution against this man who was called De Castro, but who was really Sir Roger Tichborne. [Laughter.] Well, why did the Attorney General prosecute him for perjury and forgery?
MR. BRUCE: I rise to Order. Not only do I think the conduct of the hon. Gentleman is exceedingly indecorous—whether this person is what he describes himself to be or not—but what I want to say is, that over and over again the hon. Gentleman has stated what is not the fact—what, at least, he ought to know is not the fact—namely, that the House of Commons is asked, at the instance of the Attorney General, to find money for retaining the Attorney General for the conduct of the prosecution. Now, the Attorney General has nothing whatever to do with the institution of the prosecution. This is a prosecution instituted upon a report of a learned Judge, and, as a matter of course, as the hon. Member ought to know, the Treasury are bound to prosecute
MR. WHALLEY: I rise to Order.
MR. BRUCE: I do not think—and I believe the House will agree with me—that it is right to allow the hon. Member for Peterborough to pursue a course of mis-statements. I cannot think that the hon. Gentleman is by any means in Order in the observations he has made and is making.
MR. SPEAKER: I am appealed to on a point of Order. I cannot say that the hon. Member is out of Order in the observations he has made. As to the propriety of them that is a question for the House, and not for the Chair.
MR. WHALLEY: Sir, that observation is more painful to me than anything which could be said by the bitterest opponent.
MR. R. N. FOWLERcalled the attention of the Speaker to the fact that there were not 40 Members present.
Notice taken that 40 Members were not present; House counted, and 40 Members being found present,
MR. WHALLEYresumed, and said, he had been made the subject of the most unmannerly and violent attack and interruption by the Secretary for the Home Department that had ever been witnessed. The right hon. Gentleman had charged him with making mis-statements; but he had not made any misstatement, and he regarded that charge as an unworthy manoeuvre. ["Order!"] It was not worthy of the position or personal character of the right hon. Gentleman, when he was labouring and striving to make himself intelligible, to rise and interrupt him, under the plea of Order, when there was no breach of Order. And the hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. R. N. Fowler), had tried to count him out. The anomaly of this case was, that they were called upon to provide funds for the prosecution of this man by the Government, acting on the advice of the Attorney General, who was engaged on the other side at the trial before Chief Justice Bovill.
MR. BRUCErepeated that the hon. Gentleman was indulging in mis-statement.
MR. WHALLEYsaid, that he had to urge in justification of his statement that they had never heard that the Attorney General had released himself from his official position as Law Adviser of the Government. He maintained that the Government were bound to make some further inquiry into the case, in order to elicit more than they knew from the Attorney General. There was no doubt in his mind that the Claimant really was the man he professed to be. The Claimant was utterly penniless and destitute, and the Government should see that the witnesses necessary for his defence were brought forward. He (Mr. Whalley) felt pain in being obliged to take part in certain proceedings connected with the man; but there was no sacrifice or effort that he was not ready to make in order to secure a fair trial for him.
MR. STACPOOLEseconded the Motion.
Motion made, and Question proposed,
"That there be laid before this House, a Copy of all Applications made to the Secretary of State for the Home Department or to the Solicitor of the Treasury as to providing the means for the

851
defendant in the case of The Queen v. Castro alias Tichborne to bring forward witnesses in his defence, and for such information as to the evidence that will be brought forward in support of the prosecution as the defendant would have been entitled to receive if he had been committed for trial by any other process than that of the Order of a Judge at Nisi Prius; together with the Replies that have been made to such Applications."—(Mr. Whalley.)
MR. JAMESdid not rise for a moment to say whether or not it would be right in the Government to grant that Return. He understood the hon. Member for Peterborough wished his own letter to lie on the Table. Neither would he express any opinion as to the guilt or innocence of the person who was now charged and who was awaiting his trial. It was, he thought, most unbecoming in a Member of that House to rise in his place and say he believed that a person who was awaiting his trial was guilty, and it was equally unbecoming in him to say he believed he was innocent. Whilst he abstained from offering any opinion upon the question itself, he must say that there was a view of the question that should be taken of the matter even by private Members of the House of Commons. Could it be deemed right in any Member of that House to wander about the country in carriages which were provided as a money speculation, and to stand beside a man who had admitted that he could not answer questions put, upon the ground that in doing so he might criminate himself, and to stand beside him while he used indecent epithets in reference to Her Majesty's Attorney General, and in reference to a jury of his country having been bribed to deliver a verdict that they had given upon their oaths? The House could not take proceedings upon such facts; they could only regret what had taken place. But when it was sought to make the House the arena for continuing such performances; when they were asked to sit by and listen to opinions expressed as to a prisoner's guilt or innocence; and when it was sought to do for a particular person who had been committed for trial that which never had been and could not be done in the House of Commons for anyone else, simply because that person had friends in that House, then he ventured to say, with all submission, that he thought the time had come when the House ought to protest against being made parties to such a proceeding. Not
852
that they could prevent the hon. Member for Peterborough by the Rules of the House, or by those rules of taste and propriety which were still more binding on some men, from making such a Motion. Yet they could, by their silence and by their words show to the public that they took no part in that which he said out-of-doors was a mountebank performance, and in-doors was a nuisance and an insult alike to the House and the country.
MR. BRUCEsaid, the hon. Member for Peterborough asked the Government to produce certain documents. As far as the Home Office was concerned those documents consisted of two Memorials, one from Southampton, and he was sorry to say, the other from West Hartlepool, requesting the Government to act in accordance with the recommendations given by the hon. Member for Peterborough. He was much mistaken if he did not recognize in those Memorials the hand—[An hon. MEMBER: The Roman hand]—of that hon. Member. At any rate, their language closely resembled the language which he had heard from him on many occasions. But he believed there would be no advantage to the public or to the course of justice in producing those documents. They all emanated more or less from the hon. Gentleman, who must be well acquainted with them. For himself, he could not see how they could possibly subserve the interests of justice. He quite agreed with the hon. and learned Member for Taunton (Mr. James) as to the conduct of the hon. Member for Peterborough in discussing that question, and coming forward to state his views as to the innocence or guilt of a person whose innocence or guilt was about to be submitted to a legal tribunal. Not only was that conduct unusual, it was also highly reprehensible. He could have wished that it had been in the Speaker's power to prevent what he thought was a scandal to the House. The hon. Member said it was his duty—if he took a certain view of the conduct of the Tichborne claimant, and believed in his innocence—to endeavour to prevent the spending of public money on his trial. But he (Mr. Bruce) begged the House to remember that the prosecution was instituted on the express recommendation of the learned Judge who heard the case, and who committed that person for trial. Therefore, it was

853
clearly the duty of the Government to undertake the prosecution. Nor was it true that prosecutions on the part of the Government were invariably instituted upon the recommendation of the Law Officers of the Crown. The Government might, if it thought fit, have recourse to the advice of its Law Officers; but in the majority of instances those prosecutions were instituted without any reference to them. In the present case that was eminently the fact; because the Attorney General, in consequence of the part he had taken at the previous trial, had thrown upon the Home Office jointly with the Treasury the duty and responsibility of collecting the requisite evidence. The hon. Gentleman (Mr. Whalley) hoped that all that was usual would be done in order to secure a fair trial. He could assure him that everything which was usually done in such cases would be done in the present one. The person about to be prosecuted would stand in no better and in no worse position than if he had been committed for trial in the ordinary way. But the hon. Member went further, and asked that in that case, above all other cases, the Treasury should find the money not only for the prosecution, but also for the defence. For such a course there was no precedent, and he was at a loss to discover anything in the peculiar circumstances of that case to call upon the Government to create such a precedent. He must, therefore, decline to accede to the Motion.
MR. WHALLEYexplained, in reply, that his connection with the county of Hampshire first led to his taking an interest in this case, and his opinion was that it had not been fairly tried. He assured the hon. and learned Member for Taunton (Mr. James) that he was only a "mountebank" in the sense of going to certain parts of the country; but he must remind him, that while mountebanks went about the country for money for their own purposes, he was driven to the course he was pursuing by the refusal of the Government to give the assistance which was absolutely necessary in order that this man should have a fair trial. He had never before witnessed such a degree of anxiety, earnestness, and even enthusiasm as was shown by the public in this respect.
Question put, and negatived.

COAL.—RESOLUTION.
SIR WILLIAM GALLWEYmoved—
"That it is expedient that the President of the Board of Trade give to this House any information relative to the causes producing the present high prices and scarcity of Coal; with an Estimate of the approximate value of Coal when on board ship in any of the ports of Europe or America conveniently situated for its exportation to this country; and in case the information required be not already in the possession of the Board of Trade, such information be obtained and furnished to this House and to the Country at the earliest possible date."
The hon. Baronet said, that everyone felt that if the present high price of coal were maintained, it must inflict great hardships upon all, and especially upon the poor, and upon the trade of the country. If the increase in the price of coal arose wholly from those who raised it refusing to work the same number of hours as previously, whilst he agreed that they had a right to deal with their labour as with any other kind of property, yet still such a determination would lead to great hardships; and it should be borne in mind that when any particular class who suffered from want of work came to the public for succour, such succour was not—and he trusted never would be—found wanting. If, on the other hand, the coal owners thought it for their interest to keep up a small supply so as to secure famine prices, then the question was one with which the Legislature ought to deal. Some time ago, when the coal owners, in league with the geologists, declared that within a certain long period of time it was very possible, if not probable, that the supply of coal would practically fail, or become too difficult in winning, a Royal Commission was appointed, and he believed that that Commission worked greatly to the advantage of the coal owners. What he wished to say to the Government was this—that if they could give a Royal Commission when it was simply feared that the coal supply would fail within some very distant time, surely now that the failure was upon us and the price was increasing every day, some course should in consequence be taken. They ought not to refuse to give all the aid that science or the Government could afford upon the subject.
Motion made, and Question proposed,
"That it is expedient that the President of the Board of Trade give to this House any informa-

855
tion relative to the causes producing the present high prices and scarcity of Coal; with an Estimate of the approximate value of Coal when on board ship in any of the ports of Europe or America conveniently situated for its exportation to this country; and in case the information required be not already in the possession of the Board of Trade, such information be obtained and furnished to this House and to the Country at the earliest possible date."—(Sir William Gallwey.)
MR. A. PEELsaid, that he was not aware that it was the departmental duty of the Board of Trade to collect the information which was asked for in this Motion, nor that the Board was in anyway officially cognizant of what the supply of coal was, or in any way specially qualified to give information. He believed that the hon. Baronet himself was far better qualified to give an opinion upon the general subject than he (Mr. Peel) was. When the hon. Baronet asked what were the reasons why coal was at famine prices, he must call his attention to what had already appeared in the public journals, especially in The Economist newspaper, and also in the daily journals, in reference to the causes which had led to the high price of coal. There was extraordinary prosperity in the country, a stimulus had been given to all trade, and there was also the fact that coal was the great producing element in trade, and that machine labour was being substituted for manual labour. There was also the fact that there was an enormous demand for iron and immense development of shipbuilding, and all these circumstances taken together would sufficiently account for the high price of this article of consumption. He believed, looking at the facts before him, that the deficiency in coals was rather relative than real. The causes to which he had alluded had tended to increase inordinately the demand for coals. It was very well known that when a demand for any particular article overtook, however slightly, the supply, the price of the said article rose to a far greater extent than could be accounted for by the actual deficiency between supply and demand. That was the case with coals at the present period. The price to which they had risen was out of all proportion to the actual deficiency. He believed that before long we should see a considerable reduction in the price of coals—indeed, possibly before the winter set fairly in. Although the wages of those employed in the coal
856
trade were increased, he believed that that would have the effect of attracting a larger supply of labour, and of thus stimulating the efforts which were being made to secure us a larger production than heretofore, and thereby ultimately rectifying the balance between supply and demand. This was not only his opinion, but the opinion of others much more experienced in the matter. It was impossible for the Board of Trade to obtain the information referred to in the Motion. Indeed, there were no means of obtaining information of the approximate value of coal on board ships in different ports conveniently situated for exportation to this country, for, of course, prices would vary in proportion to the demand from this country, and the cost of freight. Perhaps some information might be obtained through the medium of the foreign Consuls; but the Board of Trade only tabulated the information which was collected by the other Departments. The proportion of foreign coal imported into this country was at present exceedingly small. For the last month the quantity did not exceed 75 tons, and from the commencement of the year to the 3rd of August, the whole importation was between 270 and 300 tons. As to the price at which it was imported, Great Grimsby was the only place which had been accessible to him for information; and there the declared selling value of the coal imported was 18 s. a ton. If, in the course of the Recess, the hon. Baronet would communicate with him, he would be happy to give him any further information which he might be able to procure on the subject.
SIR WILLIAM GALLWEY, in asking leave to withdraw his Resolution, thanked the hon. Gentleman for his full and courteous answer. He now acknowledged he had made a mistake in asking the Board of Trade for information as to certain facts instead of the Foreign Office.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
House adjourned at a quarter before Six o'clock.

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—Second Reading—Committee negatived—Third Reading—Consolidated Fund (Appropriation) *, and passed.
Third Reading—Union Officers (Ireland) Superannuation * (294); Expiring Laws Continuance * (293), and passed.

PATENT OFFICE—MR. LEONARD EDMUNDS.

  MOTION FOR AN ADDRESS.
  LORD REDESDALE, in moving—
  "That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying Her Majesty to direct the Comptroller and Auditor General of the Exchequer to audit under the provisions of the Exchequer and Audit Departments Act, 1866, the accounts between the Crown and Mr. Leonard Edmunds, late reading clerk at the Table, to whom this House granted a pension on his retirement, of which he has been deprived on charges of malversation, the justice of which charges cannot be rightly determined without such audit, which this House ought therefore in justice to him to obtain; and to which the Judges of the Court of Queen's Bench, to whom Mr. Edmunds lately applied to enforce such audit, while stating that the Acts of Parliament did not enable the Court to grant a mandamus against the Treasury for that purpose, declared unanimously that they considered him morally entitled,"
  said, in support of the Motion, after commenting at some length upon the well-known facts of the case, he must contend that although there had been an arbitration there had been no real or adequate investigation of Mr. Edmunds' accounts. That gentleman had been deprived of the pension which had been granted to him by that House, in consideration of his long services as clerk at the Table; and, under these circumstances, their Lordships' honour was concerned in seeing that justice was done to him, more especially as the late Lord Justice Giffard had expressly acquitted him of any fraudulant misappropriation of public money. He further thought that as Mr. Edmunds had never been able to ascertain the grounds upon which the decision had been arrived at by the arbitrators in the case, that he was entitled to a complete and satisfactory audit of the transactions which had been comprised in the arbitration. He should therefore move for the Address of which he had given Notice.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, that since the noble Lord gave Notice of his intention to move for the Address, he had thought it his duty to inquire fully into the matter, and he thought that there never had been a case in which such ample justice had been done to a man accused of receiving public moneys for which he had not accounted as that of Mr. Edmunds. Having regard to the actions for libel instituted by Mr. Edmunds, and the statements made by him in reference to all those
  832
  who took a different view from his, it was neither easy nor pleasant for anyone to attempt to show how the matter stood. However, he would state that a question had arisen with respect to certain discounts which Mr. Edmunds had appropriated in respect to stamps, and to certain sums which he had retained in respect of parchments used in the granting of patents; and although there was no doubt with respect to these points, that Lord Justice Giffard, when Vice Chancellor, had said that on moral grounds there were very considerable reasons for saying that Mr. Edmunds had had charged against him an amount which was extremely onerous, and that he ought to have some relaxation on that ground, yet it by no means justified him in charging for the payment for the parchments. Information had been filed on the part of the Crown for the moneys in the hands of Mr. Edmunds, for about 1864 the attention of the Treasury had been called to circumstances which led them to believe that that gentleman had had in his possession moneys for which he had not accounted. Mr. Greenwood, the Solicitor to the Treasury, a man of high character and ability, and Mr. Hindmarch, having large practice—both now deceased—had inquired into the matter, and the result was a series of reports which Mr. Edmunds contested most strongly, and which brought him in as a debtor. While, however, the Treasury were considering what course they should adopt they were startled by his paying over to them £7,000, which he admitted to be due from himself to the Crown. That was startling, because, while the Treasury believed he had some money to account for, they had no idea that he owed the Government money to that amount. His offer led to the Treasury thinking they were justified in directing the Attorney General to file an information to make Mr. Edmunds account for all the money he had received and expended, upon which Mr. Edmunds retorted by commencing an action for libel against Mr. Greenwood. The result of filing this information in Chancery was to afford an opportunity for the fullest inquiry into the accounts on both sides. The new Act for the audit of such accounts came into operation in 1867, and he believed Mr. Edmunds' case was the cause of the passing of that Act. The

  833
  words of the statute itself were—"If the Treasury shall require it, there shall be an audit." The Treasury did not think the Act ought to have a retrospective effect. They regarded it as an Act which would enable them in future to bring public servants more readily to account; but as regarded Mr. Edmunds they had taken that course which gave him every opportunity of bringing forward his accounts. If, however, Mr. Edmunds had chosen to do so he might have applied for an audit under that Act in 1867 or 1868. He did not adopt that course; but in June 1868, he wrote to Mr. Disraeli, who was then First Lord of the Treasury, begging that all the ruinous litigation might be put an end to, and the whole matter of accounts referred to arbitration. That was his request at that time. He knew there was the Act of 1867, and might have said—"Give me my audit," but he did not do so. His request for an arbitration was granted, and on terms the most favourable to himself. Mr. Denman, one of the arbitrators, was appointed by the Treasury; Mr. Pollock, the other arbitrator, was appointed by Mr. Edmunds himself, and the two arbitrators appointed Mr. Manisty umpire. Mr. Edmunds also asked and obtained that the hearing of the case by the arbitrators should be public. It took 11 days. Mr. Edmunds was represented by Mr. Napier Higgins and Mr. Digby Seymour, and he had every opportunity of bringing his accounts before the arbitrators, being assisted by his accountant Mr. Chatteris; but the matter did not rest there, because in an action brought by Mr. Edmunds against The Daily Telegraph a day or two ago, Mr. Denman and Mr. Pollock were called into the witness box by the defendant, and were examined and cross-examined. Both those learned gentlemen said that on the arbitration they went into every account presented to them. Now, Mr. Edmunds had every opportunity of presenting all his accounts to them, and what was the result of the arbitration? That Mr. Edmunds, having already of his own accord paid £7,000, and the arbitrators having given him credit for all the sums which the Treasury allowed him to take credit for on moral grounds, they found that between £7,000 and £8,000 were due by him. With regard to the statement of the Judges of the Court of
  834
  Queen's Bench, that they considered Mr. Edmunds morally entitled to the audit for which he asked, it must be remembered that those learned persons had only before them an ex parte case, and that they were not in possession of all the facts. The Act of 1866 was only intended to give the Treasury a quicker remedy in such cases, but it did not in the least prevent them from adopting the stricter method of an information in Chancery. He might further state that in coming to a decision as arbitrators, Mr. Denman and Mr. Pollock were of one mind, so that they had not to refer to Mr. Manisty; but if the latter learned gentleman had been referred to he would have had no hesitation in expressing his concurrence with the arbitrators. As to what the noble Lord (Lord Redesdale) had said about the award not having been a final one, the noble Lord was mistaken. If the award had been against the Treasury and had been made a rule of Court, it would have been binding on the Government. Mr. Edmunds, who did not ask for an audit in 1867 or 1868, asked for one now, when Mr. Greenwood and Mr. Hindmarch were dead; but he thought their Lordships would be of opinion, after the award made by Messrs. Denman and Pollock, and the evidence of those gentlemen that they had gone into all the accounts presented to them, that no man had ever such ample justice done to him as Mr. Edmunds, and that there was no ground for re-opening a case already so fully inquired into.
  LORD REDESDALEsaid, he was not satisfied that the audit should be refused; but at that period of the Session it would be useless to move for an Address. He should therefore withdraw the Motion.
  Motion (by leave of the House) withdrawn.

ROYAL MINT—COINAGE OF FARTHINGS.

  QUESTION.
  LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEYasked the Government, What quantity of farthings have been issued by the Mint in the last two years, and what number of those coins are supposed to be in circulation?
  LORD BUCKHURSTthought that some information as to the quantity of small silver coin in circulation would also

  835
  be desirable. We were behind other countries in respect of small coin, and he believed much inconvenience had been experienced by persons who could not obtain a supply of farthings.
  THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNEreplied that there had been no interruption in the coinage of farthings in 1870–71. In the former year £3,010 worth of farthings had been issued, and in the latter £2,685. It was quite true that since, no farthings had been coined, because the Mint had a large stock on hand, of which they naturally wished to dispose. As to the number of farthings now in circulation, since the introduction of the bronze coinage in 1860 down to last year, farthings to the value of £105,000 had been issued, and were presumably still in use, either in England or the colonies. He thought the noble Lord (Lord Buckhurst) must have been misinformed, because there was a stock of farthings in the Mint quite sufficient to meet all probable demands, and persons who required them could buy them there.
  House adjourned at Six o'clock, till To-morrow, a quarter before Two o'clock.