chers ought to have pronounced him not guilty? If it was proved by facts admitted by himself that he had received money for one purpose and had applied it to another, is he to complain that the Benchers, while finding the charge of fraud not proved, censured him for the mode in which he dealt with the cash? Surely if we thought upon the evidence adduced that the hon. and learned Gentleman was deserving of censure, it was our bounden duty to express that censure. It is all very well for the hon. and learned Gentleman to ask the House to express an opinion upon his own version of the facts. I do not desire to follow him into the particulars of each individual case, but the charges brought against him were of a very serious character. The Parker case I have stated. The Robertson case was neither more nor less than a charge of stealing securities. Does the hon. and learned Gentleman mean to say that such a charge, when brought against a person lately made a Queen's counsel is not to be investigated by the Benchers of the Inn to which he belongs? In the other case, the charge was that he had misappropriated certain shares in a Company, of which he was a director, and had used them for his own purposes with the Messrs. Coutts. Will any man venture to say that that is not a charge which ought to be investigated? Such are some of the matters which were brought before the Benchers of the Middle Temple. The only course which could be adopted, as it appears to me, was that a committee should ascertain whether there were good grounds for investigating the charges. We adopted that course, and what was the result? The Committee came to the conclusion, in the first place, that there were not sufficient grounds for inquiry into various matters, other than those I have mentioned, which had been brought under our notice. Does that show any desire to place the hon. and learned Gentleman on his trial without proper cause? Yet he asks the House to express the opinion that the Benchers were wrong in putting him upon his trial at all. I now come to the mode in which the inquiry was conducted. The regulation in the Middle Temple is that in cases of this description there should be nine members present, and that the same nine members should attend throughout the inquiry. From the length of this investigation and the varied subjects brought under the attention of the Bench, it happened that the same nine members were not always present; but as soon as that circumstance was discovered, it was communicated to the hon. and learned Gentleman, who was asked whether he wished the proceedings to be commenced de novo. At his own desire the proceedings were continued-continued without the slightest objection of any sort or kind from him, until after he heard the result of the inquiry. So with respect to the time of the sittings. If the hon. and learned Gentleman had objected to the Benchers holding their sittings at the time this House does-namely, after dinner, arrangements would have been made for holding the inquiry at a season of the year when it could have been conducted in the day-time, but not a word was heard from him on the subject. It is well enough when all is over to make complaints about the constitution of the tribunal and the time of the sittings, but when the hon. and learned Gentleman talks of the changes which took place from time to time in the members of the Bench, I would ask him who, towards the end of the proceedings, solicited one gentleman who had not heard the evidence to attend the sittings, and so alter the constitution of the court? Why, it was the hon. and learned Gentleman himself, and therefore he has no right to complain upon that score. At the conclusion of the case, when the evidence filled upwards of 700 printed pages, there was no member of the Bench prepared to undertake the delivery of a judgment upon it. The case was adjourned for a considerable period, in order that every member of the Bench might have an opportunity of reading the evidence. can say, that the evidence was gone over with the greatest possible care; I, for one, devoted whole days to it; and the hon. and learned Gentleman had the benefit of every doubt which could be suggested. We had to decide upon the printed evidence; but such is the case with the House of Lords, the Privy Council, and other tribunals. I am at a loss to understand how it can be said that the Benchers of the Middle Temple erred in their duty to the public, to the profession, or to the hon. and learned Gentleman. Upon the three charges they took a very lenient course. They did not find the hon. and learned Gentleman guilty; they pronounced the cases not proved; but they felt it their duty, at the same time, to pass a severe censure upon the accused called forth by facts which were too clear I a censure to be disputed. If the hon. and learned, Gentleman objects to the decision of the Benchers, and questions the propriety of their censure, there is a legitimate and proper course open to him. Let him appeal to the Judges; for the Benchers of the Middle Temple, in considering his case and pronouncing their judgment upon it, acted not only under a strong sense of responsibility, but with the knowledge that their decision might be appealed from to the Judges of the land. Is the hon. and learned Gentleman to come here, and, in a discussion upon the second reading of a Bill like that now before us, to wind up his own version of the facts by asking the House to express an opinion upon the conduct of the Benchers of the Middle Temple? I should have thought, that if he objects to the judgment which has been pronounced, it would be more correct to appeal to the Judges, and to ask them whether they are of the same opinion as the Benchers. I regret that I should have been led-by necessity led-to make any observations that have an appearance of hostility to the hon. and learned Gentleman, but it is necessary that the House should understand this charge. The hon. and learned Gentleman, however, has not thought fit to appeal to the Judges, nor has he appealed to the public. It is true he has asked the Benchers to publish the evidence, but it is no part of our duty to do 80. He has the evidence in his own possession, and he is at liberty to publish it if he pleases. MR. DIGBY SEYMOUR: I have not the whole of it. bearing upon the case, and I assert again, that the hon. and learned Gentleman has the whole of the 700 pages of the evidence and may publish it to-morrow if he pleases. It will thus be seen that the hon. and learned Gentleman has the choice of two tribunals. There is an appeal to the Judges-he declines it; and there is an appeal to the public-he does not avail himself of it. It is true he attended a public meeting in Southampton and made his own statement of the facts, declaring, among other things, that he had obtained an acquittal in an honourable manner. The people of Southampton must have been remarkably astonished when they came to read the severe censure of which the hon. and learned Gentleman now complains. But the hon. and learned Gentleman has not published the evidence, and consequently he has not appealed to the public. Nor let the House forget that he has had an opportunity of bringing the case in which a judgment stands against him before a jury. He has not adopted that course. [Mr. DIGBY SEYMOUR: I have.] About a year ago the case had never been brought to trial; and if the hon. and learned Gentleman says he intends to take that step now, I will tell the House why-since that time Mr. Parker has died. MR. DIGBY SEYMOUR: I had resolved upon it before his death, or even his illness. MR. BOVILL: The last time this case was before the Benchers the judgment was standing against the hon. and learned Gentleman, and I am very much mistaken if it does not still remain on the MR. BOVILL: The hon. and learned files of the Court. It is also important to Gentleman has the whole of the evidence remark that after the Benchers pronounced with the exception of a small interlude, their decision the hon. and learned Gentlewhich, though it is quite immaterial to the man ceased to be a member of the mess of case, I may describe to the House. One the Northern Circuit. I regret that it has of the witnesses examined before us was a been my lot to be obliged to occupy the gentleman who was introduced by the hon. time of the House with these personal matand learned Member himself. He was ters, but I should like to know why the cross-examined with respect to some let- hon. and learned Gentleman did not ask ters which happened to be in the possession the Home Secretary to have an investiof the Bench. The cross-examination was gation into his conduct at the Home Office, 'not particularly agreeable to the witness, in order to see whether he should retain and on the second occasion he asked per- the office of Recorder; or why he did not mission to look at the letters. Instead come here and ask for a Committee of Inof continuing to answer the questions ad- quiry to ascertain whether he ought any dressed to him, he quietly took the let- longer to remain a Member of this House. ters, said they were his property, and I do not mean to say that he is guilty, but put them into his pocket. I do not I do say that when he has had an opporwant to make the hon. and learned Gen-tunity of appealing to the Judges, to the tleman responsible for the conduct of his public, to a jury, to the Home Secretary, -Friend; the incident I have narrated has no or to the House-and when he has not ventured to go before any one of these tri- | cerning it than this-that he ascertained bunals-it is rather too much for him to ask that the Benchers had got possession of his the House, upon his evidence alone, to pass private letter-book, which was stolen from a judgment in his favour and to condemn his office some time ago, and were makthe conduct of the Benchers. Passing from ing use of garbled extracts, which had nothat subject to the Bill before the House, thing to do with the subject-matter of I would observe that a Royal Commission inquiry, to shake his evidence. He did was appointed in 1854, and the result was take possession of his property, and was that after a year's consideration on the very afterwards charged at the police station important subject referred to them, they with stealing the book; but the officer on came to a certain conclusion with reference duty dismissed the case, and gave the to the constitution of the Inns of Court. Benchers who preferred it a wholesome They recommended that a legal university admonition. The case, however, is now should be established with a Chancellor, a before another tribunal. Vice Chancellor, and a senate, and that the university should be composed of delegates from the four Inns of Court. If there should be any reform in the constitution of those bodies, I think it would be only right that any Bill to be brought in should be in accordance with the recommendations of the Commission. This Bill does not at all carry out those recommendations. I will only express my opinion, that if the propositions of the hon. and learned Gentleman. as embodied in this Bill, were carried out, there is scarcely a Gentleman who is now willing to undertake the duties of the office of a Bencher who would then be willing to devote his time and attention to them, and I say that there is no case made out for this Bill. MR. BOVILL: It is quite true, as stated by the hon. and learned Gentleman, that he offered evidence to show that the judgment was not an admission of fraud; but it is right I should inform the House that there was evidence, distinct evidence, the other way. MR. DIGBY SEYMOUR: The hon. and learned Gentleman now qualifies his previous statement, but I deny that there was a single atom of evidence the other way. I dispute everything the hon. and learned Member has said as totally misrepresenting the facts. SIR GEORGE GREY: I do not rise, Sir, to take any part in the discussion on the second reading of this Bill, but I wish to say a few words in conseMR. DIGBY SEYMOUR: Sir, the quence of the appeal which has been hon. and learned Gentleman has referred made to me upon the personal question into the Parker case, and has stated that troduced into it connected with the hon. there was a judgment filed against me, and learned Gentleman the Member for by which I confessed a fraud. He might Southampton. I do not mean to express the have added that I produced the evidence slightest opinion that the hon. and learned not only of the clerk of the Court of Gentleman who last addressed the House Queen's Bench, where the judgment is re- could do otherwise than he has done. I corded, but also of gentlemen of high re-think the Benchers were bound to instiputation at the Bar, including Mr. Lush, Q. C., to show that the judgment is entirely confined to an admission of the debt, and excludes altogether the notion of fraud. I proved that it was under that impression that my counsel advised me to submit to the judgment; and I may add that one of them offered to make an affidavit that my representation was correct. Upon that point, therefore, the statement of the hon. and learned Gentleman is entirely inaccurate. Nay, more; Mr. O'Malley, Q.C., and Mr. Knowles, Q.C., both brother Benchers of the hon. and learned Member, concurred in the opinion of Mr. Lush. As for the gentleman who was examined on my behalf, that matter will probably occupy the attention of a jury, and I will say no more con tute an inquiry into the case after the manner in which the character of the hon. and learned Member for Southamp ton had been impugned. I must say I think the House is perfectly incompetent to express any opinion on the case, being with regard to the nature of the inquiry totally in the dark, having not one tittle of evidence before it, not knowing how the charges originated, what the specific charges were, nor how the inquiry was conducted. The statements made with great confidence on both sides should not therefore influence the House; but if there be any means of obtaining a judicial investigation, that course should certainly be adopted. I should not have risen at all but for two statements made by the hon. and learned Member for Guildford. He has stated that the rumours affecting | that they had some foundation, what could the conduct and character of the hon. and I have done with regard to the appointlearned Member for Southampton had been ment the hon. and learned Member for long in circulation, and that having applied Southampton held? All I knew was that to be made a serjeant-at-law, and been an inquiry towards the close of last year refused the coif, the hon. and learned was conducted by the Benchers of the Member for Southampton, at a critical Middle Temple, which they thought it period in party politics, had received the their duty to institute, and which, I promotion of a silk gown from the pre-admit, after the speech of the hon. and sent Government. Sir, I speak in the learned Member for Guildford, it was name of the Government of which the their duty to institute; and the result late Lord Campbell was a distinguish- of that inquiry was, that they were of opied Member, and I feel bound to deny nion that the hon. and learned Member altogether the imputation against him for Southampton was a fit person to conand the Government of which he was tinue a Queen's counsel, and to act as a a member. In the first place, I am sure, member of the Bar and of that society that if these rumours did exist, and if they the honour of which was in their keeping. reached the ears of Lord Campbell, he It never occurred to me that it was my duty could not have attached any importance to to institute an inquiry into charges which them; and he would have been justified in were never laid before me, of which and attaching no importance to them, in the of the evidence in support of them I was absence of any action on the part of the wholly ignorant, in order to ascertain wheBenchers-the legal competent tribunal ther the hon. and learned Member for to investigate those charges-or any Southampton, being allowed by the vernotice being taken of them during the dict of the Benchers to remain a member whole time those rumours were afloat. of the Bar and to act as a Queen's counI cannot distinctly deny-for I have sel, should still retain his office of Renot the means of denial, that these corder. Sir, under these circumstances, rumours did reach Lord Campbell; but if they did, and if he had thought they had any valid foundation he, I am sure, would not, for the sake of serving any political purpose, have taken the course imputed to him. What foundation is there for the assertion of the hon. and learned Gentleman? I am not aware that in February, 1861, any political crisis was impending which could have induced Lord Campbell to act as has been stated. I can remember no such crisis-and I can appeal to every man who knew him to say whether Lord Campbell was base enough to act in the manner imputed to him. But, again, the hon. and learned Gentleman has rather im puted to myself some negligence in this matter, in not having instituted an inquiry at the Home Office, in order to ascertain whether the hon. and learned Member for Southampton should retain the judicial position he had for many years occupied as Recorder of Newcastle-on-Tyne. The hon. and learned Gentleman must be aware that recorders do not hold office during the pleasure of the Government, but during good behaviour, and I am not aware of any investigation that could have been instituted by me with a view to ascertain on what foundation these charges were made. But if I had been of opinion I hold that no blame whatever can attach to the Government on this account. At the same time, I must say, that if there is an appeal now open from the decision of the Benchers of the Middle Temple to the Judges, I think the hon. and learned Gentleman ought to have recourse to it; for I must say the House is, in my opinion, incompetent to entertain such a question or to decide it as satisfactorily as the Judges. MR. BOVILL: I beg to say that I did not impute the slightest blame, and never intended to make the slightest charge of neglect against the right hon. Baronet. I was led to make the observation I did in order to show that the hon. and learned Member for Southampton had never courted any investigation. With respect to the rumours I mentioned, I am exceedingly glad the right hon. Baronet has made the statement we have just heard. It is extremely satisfactory, and the right hon. Baronet cannot regret that an opportunity was afforded for making it. SIR GEORGE BOWYER observed that he had heard no arguments adduced in reply to what he had advanced in moving the second reading of the Bill. He should however, follow the suggestion which had been made by the hon. Member for Berk shire (Mr. Walter), and withdraw the Bill pledging himself before the close of the Session to lay on the table another mea- | and John Preston, Town Crier at Cheltensure to reform the judicial portion of the ham, at the Bar of the House this day, duties of the Benchers. The whole dis- discharged: Ordered, That the said Wilcussion showed that a change in that re- liam Isaacs, Clerk to Mr. Boodle, Solicitor spect was required. The case of the hon. at Cheltenham, and John Preston, Town and learned Member for Southampton just Crier at Cheltenham, do attend at the Bar amounted to this :-The Benchers, after of this House To-morrow, at Four o'Clock, allowing the matter to sleep for eight or in reference to their Conduct with regard ten years, instituted an inquiry, the result to the Signatures to the Petition of Barof which was that they first absolved him bara Robinson and others of Cheltenham, from every charge, and then censured him. presented on the 22nd of May last, prayIt was the old story of the jury who found ing to be heard by Counsel against the the prisoner not guilty, telling him at the "East Gloucestershire Railway Bill.' same time never to do so any more. would withdraw the Bill. He Question, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question," put, and negatived. Words added. Main Question, as amended, put, and agreed to. Second Reading put off for three months. JURIES BILL-[BILL No. 86.] Order for Committee read. Clause 1 (Short Title of Act, &c). SIR GEORGE GREY said, he thought that, upon the whole, it would be a very useful Bill, and therefore he had made no objection to the second reading. Clause agreed to. House resumed. Committee report Progress; to sit again on Friday. House adjourned at nine minutes before Six o'clock. ITALY JOSEPH MAZZINI. LORD BROUGHAM remarked that in some observations which he addressed to their Lordships a few nights since he had been misled by the accounts which he had received from Italy. Speaking of an individual, he had represented him as not only given to conspiracy and agitation in Italy, but as sparing his own person and keeping out of danger. He (Lord Brougham) had been assured that this individual had never shown any indisposition to take part in the enterprises which he originated or recommended; but that, on the contrary, he had frequently joined in these military operations. He (Lord Brougham) regretted that this individual had incited operations which could not but be inimical to the cause of Italian independence, because they could not fail to provoke the hostility of Austria, at the same time that they did not secure the support of France. DEFENCES OF THE KINGDOM. MOTION FOR PAPERS. THE EARL OF AIRLIE, in moving for Returns on the subject of the national expenditure on the Defences of the Kingdom, said, it was desirable, in his opinion, that a question like this, which was greatly agitating the public mind, should be discussed in that House, where many noble Lords could throw light upon it and speak with authority from their professional and official experience. He was aware that his own opinion could not carry any weight with it, and that it could only be of value when supported by facts. He should endeavour, therefore, to confine his remarks to those points in which he was supported by the evidence and Report of the Commissioners which had been laid before ParIt appeared to him that the BILL.- CONTEMPT OF THIS HOUSE. |