of the peace-for an office in which he would have to judge without fear, favour, or partiality, and even without the suspicion of being subject to any such influences, the various causes which might come before him, and in which the interests of different classes must be involved. It would be a deliberate poisoning of the fountain of justice at its very source. Motion made, and Question proposed, "That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that She will be graciously pleased to give directions for the removal of Mr. Churchward from the Commission of the Peace for the Borough of Dover."-(Mr. Taylor.) MAJOR DICKSON said, he would not trespass at any length on the time of the House; but he felt sure he should receive its indulgence when he rose, as he then did, to defend the character of a person who had suffered a very grievous persecution, and whom he believed to be an upright and honourable man. He thought he should be neither doing his duty as one of the Members for Dover, nor doing justice to a gentleman whom he had no hesitation in saying in that House he was proud to number among his constituents, if he did not state that he looked upon the attack which had been made upon that gentleman by the hon. Member for Leicester as not only wanton and cowardly, but-MR. OSBORNE Sir, I rise to order. The word "cowardly," Sir, is quite unknown in this House. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. and gallant Member will, no doubt, withdraw that word. MAJOR DICKSON said, he should be sorry if he had said anything which was contrary to the Rules of the House; but he was about to express his reason for his opinion. He must say that he looked upon that attack as unjustifiable. The House would remember that when he had ap pealed to the hon. Member in the name of justice to postpone that Motion for a few days only, until certain right hon. Gentlemen could be present who were intimately acquainted with the whole of the facts of the case, and able to bear testimony upon it, the hon. Member refused to accede to so reasonable an appeal. He could not, therefore, compliment the hon. Gentleman on his idea of justice; neither could he share with him the belief that it was right, or proper, or just, to sacrifice the character of an individual to gain a momentary party triumph. The hon. Member had spoken of the decision which was come to by the Committee of 1853; but he had slurred over the second Report of that Committee. He had hardly noticed the fact that the second Report was a complete answer to the first. The hon. Gentleman was as well aware as he was that Mr. Churchward himself had in vain petitioned that House to be heard at its Bar, and examined by counsel. He was also aware that for the last eight years Mr. Churchward had been trying to bring his case before a court of justice, and had always been thwarted by the Government of the day. In 1865 he brought an action in the Court of Queen's Bench, upon the main question, and how was he met? By a demurrer in law, and therefore he was again unable to vindicate his character. The persecution which Mr. Churchward had met with had no precedent in political history. Political spite, he might say, instigated the proceedings of 1859; and political spite, coupled with personal animosity, instigated the proceed. ings of 1867. The hon. Member for Leicester had told them that he had been asked by the town of Dover to bring that matter forward, and wished them to suppose that Mr. Churchward's appointment had given offence to the whole of that town. [Mr. TAYLOR: Not to the whole town, but to individuals in it.] To prove that Mr. Churchward was held in high esteem in Dover he would read to the House an address to that gentleman, which had been signed by all the leading men of the town in the short space of three hours. address said The "We, the undersigned inhabitants of Dover, beg to express to you our deep regret at the attack that was made upon you on Friday last in the House of Commons in connection with your borough. We venture to express our sense of recent appointment as a magistrate of the the high estimation in which during your long residence among us you have been so deservedly also of your fitness in every respect to fill the held by a large majority of the inhabitants, and office of a magistrate; and we would desire to express to you our heartfelt wish that you may long be spared to assist in administering justice among us, and promoting all measures tending to the advancement and prosperity of our town." Well, how did that matter originate? Was it brought forward by a leading Liberal? He could state that a Liberal of distinction and high honour was asked to bring it forward, and he distinctly refused to have anything to do with it. That proceeding had been instigated by a man who was formerly one of Mr. Churchward's servants, who was discharged for some reason into which he need not enter, and who was now actuated by spite towards his old employer. He knew that a gentleman high in station and character, a Member of that House, connected with Dover, and who was known to be an enemy of Mr. Churchward, had declined to make himself the dirty tool and cat's-paw of the hon. Member for Leicester. If the hon. Member was bursting with a desire to expose all political corruption and vice, he need not have gone to Dover to get a case. He need not have gone back fifteen or even eight years, but only about eight weeks, and he would have found sitting on the Benches opposite, almost by his very side, men who had been proved guilty before Committees of that House of conduct ten times as bad as that of Mr. Churchward. Now what, he would ask, were the accusations which were brought against Mr. Churchward? They were two. One of them related to events which had occurred as far back as 1852; the other to some proceedings which had taken place in 1859. In 1853 a Committee of that House had assembled to inquire into the question whether Mr. Mare had been duly elected for Plymouth in the preceding year, and he admitted that when they first met they had arrived at the conclusion that Mr. Churchward had bribed certain individuals at that election by offering them employment. The first Resolution, however, to which that same Committee had come on re-assembling was— fifteen years, was deserving of the special condemnation of his conduct which the hon. Gentleman opposite invited it to pronounce. There was another gentleman, named Mennie, whose name had been brought prominently forward in connection with the election for Plymouth, who had afterwards been made a magistrate. Hi appointment to that position had been challenged in that House or in the House of Lords; but it was resolved, after the decision arrived at by the Committee, clearing the character of the Conservative agents, that the appointment ought to be allowed to stand. After those transactions, in 1854, a Liberal Government, of which Earl Russell was a member, entered with Mr. Churchward into a contract for the conveyance of the mails between Dover and the Continent, which was renewed by the same Government in 1855. They must, therefore, have supposed that there was no serious reflection on his character. Beyond that, Mr. Churchward had been allowed, unchallenged, to raise a Volunteer Corps in Dover, in which he held a commission. Now, when the House was sitting in judgment upon him, he thought he might without offence ask whether there were any within its walls who, when engaged in the turmoil of a General Election, might not have committed offences as grave as those with which that gentleman was charged. He would say to hon. Members, "let him among us who can put his hand upon his heart and declare that he is without sin cast the first stone." came next to the year 1859, in which year two Committees sat-the one to inquire whether Admiral Leake and Mr. Nicol had been duly elected Members for Dover, the other to investigate the circumstances That Resolution entirely removed from connected with the renewal of the mail Mr. Churchward the odium which the contract. As to the Election Committee, Committee would seem to have cast upon its Chairman told Mr. Churchward, at the him by their first decision. It should also conclusion of its proceedings, in the open be remembered that the proceedings con- Committee-room, that nothing had trau nected with the Plymouth election ex-spired in the course of the inquiry which tended over a period of four months, that a Conservative Government was then in power, and he would, under those circumstances, put it to the common sense of the House whether it was not to be expected that the followers of that party were more likely to receive any appointments which were vacant than those who happened to profess Liberal opinions. He would ask the House whether, having taken into account the Resolution which he had just read, Mr. Churchward, after the lapse of That a general belief prevailed at Plymouth, both previous to and at the election of burgesses to serve in Parliament for the borough of Plymouth in 1852, that it was not illegal for a candidate, or his agents, to obtain, or promise to obtain, situations or employment for electors who had previously pledged their votes." He in the slightest degree affected his honour or character. He admitted, however, that the second Committee, which he had just mentioned, had come to the decision that Mr. Churchward had resorted to corrupt expedients. It must at the same time be borne in mind that this was a decision which had been challenged, as being entirely contrary to evidence, and with respect to which many distinguished Members of that and the other House of Parliament as well as of the bar entertained Mr. Corry the opinion, that on the evidence before granting of the contract." them the Committee should have arrived said that "as far as the Admiralty were concerned, the question was determined by their recommendation to the Treasury on the 24th of February," which was before the alleged statement took place, thus affording a strong presumption that Mr. Churchward could not have used the language attributed to him. Captain Carnegie, moreover, admitted that at a different conclusion. It was a decision that had been arrived at altogether upon the evidence of three individuals, and from a conversation which lasted only five minutes. He had always understood that in dealing with evidence it was customary when two persons said one thing and a third something different, to believe the statement of the two rather than that of the single individual. On the occasion in question, how ever, the Committee felt themselves justified in ignoring the testimony of two gentlemen, and taking instead that of one. The three gentlemen who were in the room in which the conversation to which he was alluding took place were Captain Carnegie, Mr. Churchward, and Mr. Herbert Murray, and he would, in the first place, read to the House the evidence of Captain Carnegie, who said "Mr. Churchward spoke to me on the subject of the pending election for Dover-he made an allusion to his anxiety to obtain the renewal of his contract. Mr. Churchward spoke most freely and openly to me upon the subject of the contract. I thought it the most imprudent and incautious speech that ever came from a man's mouth, and it made so great an impression upon me that I recollect every word of it. He led me to the belief that this contract was to be renewed. That was the impression left upon my mind." The following was Mr. Churchward's ac count of the same conversation : "In the course of his interview with Captain Carnegie the word contract was never mentioned. The word contract was never used, and my recollection of the circumstance is perfect." Mr. Murray said— 66 "I do not think the contract was ever mentioned. I am quite quite sure that nothing passed between Mr. Churchward and Captain Carnegie about the contract. I am under the impression that Captain Carnegie is confusing some conversation with him with the one between Mr. Churchward himself and Captain Carnegie. I am quite sure that Mr. Churchward never said those words to Captain Carnegie in my presence." Now, it was on that evidence, and that alone, that the words corrupt expedients" were employed. Mr. Murray further stated, that "the extension of his contract was not the price of Mr. Churchward's support to the Government at Dover." Sir John Pakington said that "he had no knowledge of the means by which the Dover election was to be carried." Sir Stafford Northcote said that "political motives had no effect in the "Mr. Murray could not have forwarded Mr. Churchward's views at the Admiralty, as before his interviews the question had been disposed of by that Department." Captain Carnegie added, that it was no discredit to a Government contractor to vote for a Government candidate; and Sir Stafford Northcote further said that he had sent for Mr. Churchward, that that gentleman did not apply to him, and that with him mainly rested the responsibility of granting the contract, which was practically settled before the elections came on. Under all those circumstances, he confidently appealed to the House to say whether the charge contained in the Report of the Committee was not simply implied rather than proved, as would seem to be shown by the fact that upon a confessedly partisan division their decision was ratified To show only by a very small majority. what were the views which were entertained on the point by those men who had the best means of judging of the merits of the case, he would read to the House the letters of a right hon. Gentleman and a noble Lord, who now occupied seats on the Treasury Bench. The first letter was as follows: "42, Harley Street, May 20, 1863. "My dear Sir,-I must thank you for your note, which has given me much pleasure. It was a great mortification to me to fail of persuading the House of Commons to take a just view of a case which has been so shamefully misrepresented, and I could not but fear that the division was owing to my imperfect statement or ineffective mode of handling the argument. I am truly glad to find that you, at least, give me credit for having done what I could. We shall fight the battle again on the 28th, and I hope with better success, though it is difficult to do away with an impression such as has been produced upon the minds of too many Members. Few will give evidence. If they did, they could hardly resist the themselves the trouble to examine and weigh the conviction that if there was any wrong in the proceedings in 1859 (and I do not think there is clear proof of there having been any at all), it was not wrong done by you, but wrong done to you. This has been my feeling throughout, and I cannot doubt that any impartial person who would take the trouble of carefully studying the facts with no other desire but to get at the truth would come to the same conclusion.-I remain, faithfully STAFFORD II. NORTHCOTE. yours, J. G. Churchward, Esq." The second letter was from the noble who said "Sir, I avail myself of the opportunity offered by your letter of the 1st to repeat to you personally and privately that which I said publicly in the House of Commons-my entire belief in your honour and good faith, and my conviction that the finding of the Committee, and the action taken by the Government, therefore, are alike opposed to common sense and common justice. Whether it is still possible to reverse the decision of the House of Commons I cannot presume to say; but if, I will not say your friends, but the friends of honesty, think fit to take further steps in the House, I shall most cordially co-operate with them; and I will anyhow express a hope that, for the future, you will feel that if you have lost a contract through political malevolence you have gained friends, among whom desires to be ranked -Yours very faithfully, JOHN MANNERS. if he had himself been sitting at the time on that side of the House he should have done the same. It was done in a moment of political agitation and excitement; but he would appeal to them whether now, in their calmer moments, they were still determined to blacken and destroy Mr. Church ward's character? Were they going to sacrifice an honourable man just for the sake of gaining a fleeting triumph over the Treasury Bench? Would they not have ample opportunities within the next month? was not dual voting to be shortly discussed, when they could exercise their feelings without restraint? Surely that would be a more fitting occasion for triumph, as well as a more liberal and generous one, thau that a great party should combine to destroy the reputation of a private gentleman? Would it be wise at this moment, when the bitterest animosities of party were ready to burst forth, for hon. GentleJ. G. Churchward, Esq." men to throw this firebrand into the camp, He thought he had now shown the House especially when men of all parties in Dover that there was no good ground for the accu- were joining hand with hand in the endeasations which had been brought against Mr. vour to promote the common welfare of Churchward, and that he was, at all events, the town? For himself he was actuated justified in asking it to withhold its decision. by no personal animosities; he cared not Mr. Churchward, as they all knew, had been whether a man were a Radical or a Tory endeavouring for a long time, at great cost, so that he was an honest man; and he to have the case heard in a court of justice; appealed to the hon. Member for Leicester, and it would be contrary to every prin- notwithstanding his extreme opinions, ciple of the Constitution if they were to whether it was worthy of his high character come to a decision that night, and so to to stand up in that House and blacken the prejudice the case in the eyes of those character of an honourable gentleman when outside the House. By the law, as it at he had not a tittle of evidence to justify the present stood respecting bribery, Members proceeding. He called upon the House, in of Parliament who might have been found the sacred name of justice, to pause before guilty of the grossest corruption were not committing a wrong which could never be prevented from resuming their position as repaired. He could not, indeed, hope for Members of the House. He had no desire | justice from mere bigoted political partisans; to cast a stone at any individual Member; but he was addressing a British House of rather than do so he had withdrawn the Commons. He left the case confidently in Motion that stood in his name that evening. the hands of hon. Members on both sides of One hon. Gentleman whose name had been the Ilouse, confident that they would be mentioned (Mr. Watkin) was a personal guided by those rules of honour and fairfriend of his. He was happy to see the ness and justice which regulated the concourse he had adopted in writing to the duct and actions of all honourable men. Lord Chancellor; and he had no doubt but that he would be able, when the time arrived, to clear himself on the floor of the House, as Mr. Churchward would be able and glad to do if he had the honour of a seat there. But he would remind hon. Gentlemen opposite that they had already ruined Mr. Churchward's property and fortune, and he had never in any way murmured at the decision. He (Major Dickson) did not find fault with hon. Gentlemen opposite on that account. Very likely MR. BENTINCK said, that at an early period of the evening he addressed a question to the hon. Member for Leicester for the purpose of ascertaining whether the hon. Member would include in his Motion all magistrates in a position similar to Mr. Churchward, and the hon. Member asked whether the question was put seriously. Now, he thought that the discussion, as far as it had gone, showed that there was a great deal of seriousness in the matter. He would not detain the House long, for, after the able address of his hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Dover (Major Dickson), he did not think that much was required to be said in favour of Mr. Churchward. As he understood the hon. Member for Leicester to say that Mr. Churchward or any person found to have committed bribery was not fit to be a magistrate, he thought that the hon. Member would have done better if he had dealt with the case more generally, and had not selected merely one isolated instance. In cases of this kind, and especially in Mr. Churchward's case, there had been exhibited a great deal of party feeling; and though he did not suppose that the hon. Member for Leicester was actuated by party motives, yet the hon. Member would have done well had he made his Motion more comprehensive. It was well known that there were many magistrates in the position, in this respect, of Mr. Churchward, and as, of course, there was no party feeling or political animosity in the present Motion, as the pure and proper administration of justice was the only object in view, it was clear that the wider the scope of the Motion the more effective it must be. He was of opinion that all personalities should be avoided, and therefore he would mention no case involving the name of any Gentleman in that House; but every one conversant with the political history of this country knew that not only Committees of that House, but tribunals more strictly judicial, such as Royal Commissions, had found that there were many instances of gentlemen who had dealt in election matters in the same manner as Mr. Churchward was charged with acting. He, consequently, proposed to move, by way of Amendment, to omit all the words in the Motion after the word "of," and to add the following words: "All persons in the Commission of the Peace in any County, City, or Borough who have been found, either by Committees of this House or by Royal Commissions guilty of, or privy or assenting to, corrupt practices in Parliamentary Elections." Amendment proposed, To leave out from the words "removal of" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "all persons in the Commission of the Peace of any County, City, or Borough who have been found, either by Committees of this House or by Royal Commissions guilty of, or privy or assenting to, corrupt practices at Parliamentary Elections." (Mr. Bentinck.) MR. GLADSTONE: Sir, the purpose of the Amendment is, I suppose, to get additional words tacked to the Motion with the view of enabling hon. Members to vote against the Motion in its original form. 1 did not gather from the speech of the hon. Mover of the Amendment whether that was his intention, and I shall be glad to know whether the additional words are proposed with that view. If so, I think it is the duty of the Government to state, for the guidance of the House, their opinion on a question of a very grave and important nature, and the importance of which I do not think the right hon. Gentleman (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) at all appreciates. I heard his answer to-night to a question put to him from his own side of the House relating to two Members of this House. I did not hear, but I became acquainted in the usual way with the answer he gave on a former occasion to a somewhat similar question. I own I can sympathize with the right hon. Gentleman up to a certain point, inasmuch as I think that class of questions is one of extreme delicacy and difficulty; but I do not sympathize with his practice in attempting to get rid of these subjects as if they were matters that could be treated with great levity. With regard to the Amendment, it appears to me that the subject embraced by it is a very serious and grave one. I am far from saying that much of the matter comprised in it may not deserve the consideration of this House, and I think that, as the circumstances referred to arise out of recent Reports of Commissions, it would have been proper for the Executive Government to state their opinion for the guidance of the House in respect to the course to be taken. The Amendment is not necessarily in propriety or justice entitled to be annexed to the original Motion. This Amendment lays down the principle, if I understand it aright, that whenever a Select Committee of this House or a Royal Commission has found that any person was guilty of corrupt practices such person shall be included within the scope of the Motion, and Her Majesty shall be prayed to remove him from the commission of the peace. That is a very great extension of the original Motion, and an extension not only as to the persons, but as to the principle. I fully admit that the hon. and gallant Gentleman would be perfectly justified in challenging my hon. Friend to accede to an addition to his Motion with regard to all persons who stand in the same position as Mr. Churchward; but that is not the issue which he has raised. Here I may remark that I was totally ig |