Fulton Data
Title: People of
the Period
1154
12 July 1846-
Fulton (Sir Forrest).
Q.C. Common Serjeant of London, was born July 12th 1846, and educated at
Norwich Grammar School, and at London University (B.A 1867; LL.B 1873). He was
called to the bar, Middle Temple, 1872, and a Q.C 1892; went S. E. Circuit;
author of a Manual of Constitutional Histoiy; successively Treasury Counsel at
Middlesex Sessions, and Senior Counsel to the Post Office and subsequently to
the Treasury at the Central Criminal Court and to the Mint for County of
Hertford; was Recorder of Maidstone June to August 1892, since when he has
been Common Serjeant of London; is a Lieutenant for City of London, a
Commissioner of the Central Criminal Court, and a Judge of the Mayor's Court
of London. He sat as M. P. for North Div. of West Ham (C.) 1886-92, having
been defeated there in Nov 1885; knighted 1892.
Title:
The Times
28 May
1887 THE CRIMES BILL.
TO THE EDITOR OF THE
TIMES,
Sir,- Mr. Baumann's letter in your issue of May 20 drawing
attention to the apparent effect of a recent speech of the Chief Secretary for
Ireland as to giving the right of appeal to Quarter Sessions in every case
under the Act raises a question of great importance.
I think, however, Mr. Balfour's meaning has
been misunderstood, and all that he meant to imply was that there would be a
right of appeal in every case upon points of law.
There is a two-fold appeal in summary cases
in this country:-
(a). Upon a question of law, which is by way
of "special case", the granting of which is in the discretion of the
magistrate, who, however, can be compelled by mandamus of the High
Court of Justice to state a case if he had improperly withheld one (see
Summary Jurisdiction Act of 1879, sec. 33). The "special case", if granted, is
argued before the Queen's Bench Division of the High Court of Justice.
(b). Upon questions of fact, which is
an appeal to Quarter Sessions. This appeal is a re-hearing, and the appellant
can call as many fresh witnesses as he pleases.
By the Summary Jurisdiction (Ireland) Act of
1851, sec. 24, there is no appeal on the facts to Quarter Sessions, unless the
order of the Justices is for a penal or other sum, exceeding 20s., or if a
sentence of imprisonment exceeding one month is passed.
The justification for the Crimes Bill which
is now being so bitterly contested is the exceptional condition of
demoralization into which that country has been permitted to lapse by reason
of the weakness of successive Governments.
One most fertile source of mischief is the
hateful and cruel system of boycotting, and probably in nine cases out of ten
one month's imprisonment with hard labour would be an adequate punishment, at
any rate for a first offence, and the same may be said, I think, for most of
the offences punishable summarily under the Act.
It is quite incredible to suppose that in
this exceptional Act the Government propose to give offenders a right of
appeal upon questions of fact not accorded in ordinary cases.
The effect would be that there would be an
appeal in every case, hosts of new witnesses would be sprung upon the Court of
Quarter Sessions at the last moment, and it is very easy to see that past
masters in the art of obstruction like the Irish Parliamentary party would
soon succeed in making the Act unworkable,, and reducing it to a nullity.
It must not be forgotten that pending the hearing of the
appeal the person convicted summarily is entitled to be at large, merely on
entering into a recognizance with two sureties to pay the costs of the appeal
(secs. 14 and 15 Vict., c. 92, sec. 24).
By all means let there be a right of appeal
by special case to the Queen's Bench Division upon questions of law in every
case, but the appeal to Quarter Sessions must only be in cases where the
sentence exceeds one month's imprisonment with hard labour, as now provided by
the Bill.
I have the very best reasons for knowing
that the supporters of the Government will not tolerate any extension of the
right of appeal now existing in Ireland upon questions of fact. Many of us
think that there have been far too many concessions already, and it must not
be supposed that because we are silent for the purpose of saving time we are
not keenly watching the course of events.
I am, Sir, your obedient servant,
FORREST FULTON.
House of Commons.
Title:
The Times
1154
28
April 1891
FREE EDUCATION.
TO THE EDITOR OF THE TIMES.
Sir,- I cannot conceive how my excellent
friend Mr. Howorth can have so far deceived himself as to believe that in the
extraordinary views he holds on the above subject he is supported by the
"great body of men on our benches", and that they share with him "a feeling of
despondency and alarm."
Mr. Howorth's usual seat is above the
gangway behind Ministers, a place generally supposed to be occupied by
thick-and-thin supporters of the Government of the day, and I should be very
much surprised to hear that any such feeling is common in that part of the
House, and certainly below the gangway on the Government side the proposals of
the Chancellor of the Exchequer have been most favourable received. The
proposal to confer "free education" on the masses is likely to prove the
greatest electioneering coup ever made by any Government - although, of
course, it has not been introduced with any such object - and in town and
country alike will be enthusiastically supported by the masses of the people.
The Opposition are completely paralyzed by
this new and wise departure. If they obstruct the Education Bill, the
Government will have the greatest cry of the century with which to go to the
country, as we trust in that case they will do in July of the present year.
If, on the other hand, they do not obstruct it, then it will become law on
September 1, and the masses will thus have practical proof of the advantage of
Unionist government, by saving from that day 2d. per week per child in the
case of every boy or girl attending a public elementary school.
This is an argument which can be brought
home to the least intelligent elector. We already pay largely for the
education of the masses, and I fail to see anything revolutionary in this
additional grant, or how it can possibly damage the voluntary schools. My own
record is quite clear on this subject; I have always held that, having made
education compulsory, it was inevitable that
sooner or later we must make it "free", and
I know this to be the opinion of the immense majority of the Tory party in the
House of Commons.
Speaking in my own constituency on September
24, 1885, immediately after the production of the "unauthorized programme" of
Mr. Chamberlain, I said:-"Provided the denominational system be maintained, I
am prepared to vote in favour of charging the school pence upon the
Consolidated Fund, and so giving free education to the industrial classes." As
it might prove highly mischievous if it were supposed that Mr. Howorth
represented any general body of opinion amongst the Tory party in the House of
Commons, I trust you will be able to find space for this protest, Your
obedient servant,
FORREST FULTON.
Canton Club, April
25.
Title:
The Times
1154
29 February 1892
LICENSED BEERHOUSES.
TO THE EDITOR OF THE TIMES.
Sir,- My attention has been directed to a
comment in your paper on a return recently laid on the table of the House
showing the number of beerhouses licensed on or before May 1, 1869, which was
moved for by me.
In your comment in your issue of the 20th
inst., and your correction in that of to-day, you seem to miss the object and
importance of the return.
I have frequently pointed out in the House
that the vested interests of the holders of "on" beer licences were forgotten
by temperance reformers, and I quoted the figures moved for in the return
obtained by Mr. Locke in 1870, which gives the numbers thus:- Country, 45,203;
London, 3,927; total, 49,130. The accuracy at the present time of this return
was questioned, and I therefore moved for a new return giving the numbers at
the present time.
My return, which is dated February 12, 1892,
gives the total as 32,497.
All these houses are unaffected by the
decision in "Sharp v. Wakefield," and in any scheme of licensing reform would,
if suppressed, have to be paid for by the local authority.
I may add that the return is incomplete,
some places having made no return, and, therefore, the number is necessarily
somewhat in excess of that here given. I am, Sir, your obedient servant,
FORREST FULTON.
February 23.
Title:
The Times
1154
25 March
1892 PARLIAMENT.
ThE CHIEF CONSTABLE
OF IPSWICH
Mr. FULTON
asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention had
been called to the recent action of the Chief Constable of the borough of
Ipswich in giving notice to Messrs. Bridges and Sons, auctioneers in the sale
of certain publichouse property situate in Tacket-street, Ipswich, known as
the Grapes, that the renewal of the licence for the said property would in due
course be objected to, and requesting them to read his letter at the auction
before inviting biddings; if he was aware that the Chief Constable also
intimated to the auctioneers that should they refuse to read his letter he
would cause a question to be asked in the auction room in order to direct
attention to it; and if the Chief Constable in so interfering in the matter
was acting within the scope of his legitimate authority.
Mr. MATTHEWS.- I am informed by the Chief
Constable that the facts are as stated in the first paragraph of the question.
The Chief Constable also informs me that prior to the auction a conversation
took place between himself and the solicitors and auctioneers as to a question
being asked in the auction room relative to the letter he had written, but
that he did not attend the sale, nor did any one on his behalf interfere in
the matter, the solicitors and auctioneers being left free to act according to
their own judgment with respect to the letter. I am further informed by the
Chief Constable that the last tenant of the house had become bankrupt, that
the house had been closed for many months prior to the auction, and that, as
there was a strong feeling that the number of licensed houses in the quarter
of the town where this house was situated was in excess of the requirements of
the inhabitants, the licensing justices were anxious that any purchaser of the
house should have fair notice that the licence would be objected to. Under
these circumstances I see no reason for questioning the action of the Chief
Constable.
Title:
The Times
1154
8 August 1892
Her Majesty has approved of the name of Mr.
Forrest Fulton, LL.B., for appointment to the office of Common Serjeant
in the City of London.
Title:
The Times
1154
8 August 1892
Mr. Forrest Fulton, who is a graduate
of the University of London, was called to the Bar at the Middle Temple in
1872, and has had, for many years past, a large practise at the Central
Criminal Court, where he is the senior counsel to the Treasury. In 1885 he
contested West Ham (Northern Division) in the Conservative interest against
Mr. E. Rider Cook, but was beaten by 719 votes. In 1886 he won the seat
against Mr. Cook by 727 votes, but he was defeated last month by Mr. Archibald
Grove by the narrow majority of 31 votes.
Title:
The Times
1154
1 March 1894
UNIFICATION OF LONDON.
TO THE EDITOR OF THE TIMES.
Sir,- The modest and unpretending document
which yesterday appeared in your columns, prepared by the London County
Council, and containing the "broad outline of a scheme" for the amalgamation
of the City and County of London, contains some very remarkable proposals.
Ex uno disce omnes. I would like,
with your permission, to examine so much of the scheme as relates to the
future administration of justice within the County of London, for it seems to
me to illustrate in a very remarkable degree the folly, ignorance and
recklessness of its authors.
At present the whole assize business, not
merely of the County of London, but of a large and populous area lying outside
it, is disposed of at the Central Criminal Court, it being necessary to hold a
Court of Oyer and Terminer and general gaol delivery every month.
The bulk of the business is taken before the
Recorder and Common Serjeant, who are Commissioners of Assize, a Judge of the
High Court attending for a few days during each session to try cases of murder
and manslaughter and some others.
The Recorder receives a salary of £4,000 a
year, and both the Recorder and Common Serjeant are paid by the City.
The
Recorder and Common Serjeant are also Judges of the Mayor's Court, one of the
most useful Courts of record in the kingdom, having an unlimited
jurisdiction where the cause of action arises within the City, and a
jurisdiction up to £50 outside "the square mile". It is not in the
least like a county court, as counsel have exclusive audience, as in the High
Court, and actions are tried before a jury of 12. A special jury can also be
obtained. Since the appointment of my colleague, Sir Charles Hall, as Recorder
of London the business of this Court has largely increased, both in quantity
and quality, monthly sittings are held, lasting for two to three weeks, at
which actions involving large amounts are daily tried, and the Court enjoys in
a peculiar degree the confidence of the Bar and the public.
Of these two Courts the new municipality
propose to wipe their hands altogether, and are generous enough to provide
other employment for the Recorder and Common Serjeant, to which I will
presently more specifically refer.
Paragraph 41 thus deals with the matter:-
"The manner of dealing with the Central
Criminal Court and the Mayor's Court shall be determined by the Home
Secretary, and meanwhile the present Assistant-Judge shall be sole Judge of
the Mayor's Court."
This proposal is as ungrammatical as it is
ridiculous, and apparently contemplates the appointment of Commissioners of
Assize for the disposal of the business at the Central Criminal Court; in
other words, imposes an additional tax on the community of at least £6,000 a
year.
The framers of this precious scheme seem to
be under the impression that the Central Criminal and the Mayor's Courts are
one and the same; and that, whilst the Home Secretary is making up his mind
and vainly endeavouring to induce a hard-hearted Chancellor of the Exchequer
to find £6,000 a year as the salary of new Commissioners out of the public
funds, all the assize business of the Central Criminal Court area is to be
disposed of by the Assistant-Judge! It is true Mr. Roxburgh is not a
Commissioner of Assize; but what are details to the London County Council!
This must be their proposal, as otherwise the word meanwhile" in the paragraph
has no meaning, and the poor prisoners could not be tried at all.
It is pleasant, however, to think that the
Recorder and myself, although we are to cease to be Commissioners of Assize
and Judges of the Mayor's Court, are not to be left without employment.
Sir Peter Edlin is to be deposed and Sir
Charles Hall is to become chairman of the Quarter Sessions of the County of
London. Poor Sir Peter!
The scheme does not go on to say whether the
County Council in their munificence propose to continue to attach to the
office of chairman of Quarter Sessions the splendid salary of £1,500 a year
now received by Sir Peter Edlin, and it never seems to have occurred to them
that Sir Charles Hall might not be prepared to sacrifice (inter alia)
£4,000, even to oblige the County Council. I will not wrong that economical
body by even contemplating for a moment the possibility that they do propose
to pay their new chairman £4,000 a year.
Has not Mr Councillor Burns, M. P., publicly
stated, within the sacred precincts of Spring-gardens, amidst the applause of
his fellow councillors, that he had never yet met any one (no not even "honest
John Burns") who was worth £500 a year!
Sir Peter Edlin may console himself by
thinking he is to have a comrade in misfortune, the Common Serjeant, who is to
be soothed with the title of "Deputy Recorder".
Hitherto the deputy-chairman of the London
Quarter Sessions has been remunerated at the rate of five guineas a day when
it is necessary for him to sit; may I ask if it is probable Sir Peter and
myself will get any more?
It seems to have escaped the astute minds of
those who are responsible for this wonderful scheme that I hold my appointment
direct from the Crown, by whom I was appointed to the office of Common
Serjeant (described as an ancient office in 1312) and constituted thereby a
Judge of Assize and Judge of the Mayor's Court; and that it was for this
honourable position I gave up a lucrative practice at the Bar, including the
appointment of Senior Counsel to the Treasury at the Central Criminal Court,
worth £1,000 a year; and that not even to oblige Mr. Harrison or Mr. Burns
could I consent to spend the rest of my life in trying petty larcenies and
indecent assaults in the Second Court at Clerkenwell or Newington. The insult
offered to Sir Peter Edlin by this scheme is as studied as it is undeserved,
and is of a piece with the whole treatment of this distinguished Judge by the
London County Council. Sir Peter was constituted by statute first chairman of
the London Quarter Sessions, and entered upon his duties as such on January 1,
1889; he was then past 70 years of age and was unable to retire as he was not
entitled to a pension, and had been Assistant Judge for 15 years previously.
His work
was increased by at least one-third, and the whole business of the Court of
Assessment Sessions for London thrown upon his shoulders; and yet his
reforming and righteous body have steadily refused to give him one farthing
extra remuneration! Now they propose to add insult to injury, and allow
him to spend his declining years, in company with myself, in the pleasing
occupation to which I have already referred.
I hope, Sir, with your permission, to
consider in your columns other parts of this remarkable and to me fascinating,
document, on some future occasion; but for the present, I fear I have already
trespassed at too great length upon your space, I am, Sir, yours faithfully,
FORREST FULTON.
Carlton Club, Feb.28.
Title:
The Times
1154 8 November 1890
THE
SALARY OF THE CHAIRMAN OF THE LONDON QUARTER
SESSIONS
TO THE EDITOR OF THE TIMES.
Sir,- I should like to be permitted to add a word or two to
the letter appearing in your issue this morning upon the subject of the salary
appertaining to the office of Chairman of the Quarter Sessions of the County
of London. I have the distinct authority of Mr. Ritchie for saying that it was
never for a moment contemplated that the salary attaching to the new office
would be the same as that formerly payable to the Assistant Judge; on the
contrary, the Act specifically sets out £1,500 as a minimum. The salary
of £1,500 a year, attached to the old office of Assistant Judge had long been
regarded by the profession as a public scandal, and many years ago, during the
time Sir W. Harcourt was Home Secretary, the magistrates of the county of
Middlesex unanimously petitioned for the raising of the salary to £2,000.
By the Local Government Act the duties of
the office have been increased by one-third, as the chairman has now to try
all prisoners and to dispose of all appeals in cases arising in that portion
of the county of London which lies to the south of the Thames, and,
furthermore, the Court of Assessment Sessions has been abolished and its
jurisdiction transferred to the Quarter Sessions.
These enormous additional duties have been
imposed upon the present chairman, Sir Peter Edlin (without his consent), by
statute, and surely common sense and common honesty require that the office
should be adequately remunerated, in the interest of the community who are so
deeply concerned in the proper administration of justice in so important an
area as the county of London.
I have an intimate acquaintance with the
business of the Quarter Sessions, which now extends over nearly 20 years, and
for some years I filled the responsible position of Treasury counsel there,
and I say without the slightest hesitation that there is no more important
judicial office in the kingdom (apart from that of a Judge of the High Court)
than that now held by Sir P. Edlin.
The addition of these new and laborious
duties falls with great force upon the present holder of the office, who has
discharged judicial duties for upwards of 16 years with conspicuous ability
and an earnest desire to do justice, and who has therefore some claim to
generous treatment.
I am, Sir, your obedient servant,
FORREST FULTON.
Carlton Club, Nov. 5.
TO THE EDITOR OF THE TIMES.
Sir,- The letter of Mr. Howorth in your
columns this morning is both opportune and important.
It sets out the views of a thoroughly
representative supporter of the Government, exceptionally qualified to speak
on behalf of Lancashire and the North of England. I have myself just completed
a series of meetings in North West Ham, and thus had an excellent opportunity
of gathering the views of a great metropolitan constituency, exceptionally
democratic in its nature on the difficult problem of Irish Land Purchase. I
find that there exists in my constituency a general opinion that the coming
Session of Parliament should be exclusively devoted, so far as legislation is
concerned, to the affairs of England and Scotland.
The measures which I find most urgently
called for are the Tithe Bill, the Railway Rates Bill, and the Bill for the
reform of local government, which latter will, we trust, settle incidentally
the questions of local option and local taxation.
It should be remembered that many supporters of the
Government gave their votes last session in favour of the amended Land Bill
with great reluctance, and only in the belief that the revision of the
judicial rents, therein contained, was intended to obviate the necessity of
further dealing with the land question until the session of 1890.1 shall
certainly not give my support to any scheme of land purchase for Ireland
which, directly or indirectly, pledges the credit of the British taxpayer,
unless it takes the safe and sensible shape of a moderate extension of the
provisions of Lord Ashbourne's Act, and in my opinion no such measure is at
present required. I have the best reason for knowing that any proposal to
introduce a Land Purchase Bill during the coming Session of Parliament would
be very coldly received below the gangway, the general opinion being, so far
as I have been able to gather it, that it is the duty of the Government to
deal promptly with obstruction in Parliament, to wipe off some of the
arrears of English and Scottish legislation, to restore the authority of the
Queen in Ireland, and to maintain "the union of the Unionist party."
Your obedient servant,
FORREST FULTON.
Carlton
Club, Nov.28.
Title:
Men and Women of the
Time: A Dictionary of Contemporaries
1154
1899
Fulton,
Sir Forrest,
QC.,
LL.B., Common Serjeant of London, was born at Ostend on July 12, 1846, and is
the youngest son of the late Lieutenant-Colonel Fulton, K. H., and Fanny,
daughter of John Sympson Jessopp. He was educated under Dr. Jessopp at Norwich
Grammar School, and afterwards, in 1867, graduated B. A. in the University of
London. He became LL. B. in 1870. Entering at the Middle Temple he became a
Barrister in 1872. He is Counsel to the Treasury at the Middlesex Sessions and
Central Criminal Court, Senior Counsel to the Post Office, and Counsel to the
Mint, Hertfordshire. In 1886 he became M. P. for West Ham (North), and was
defeated at the general election of 1892 by Mr. Archibald Grove, Liberal, who
polled only thirty-two more votes. He read an address of welcome to the King
of Denmark on the occasion of his visit to the city in 1892, and received the
honour of knighthood. He has published a “Manual of Constitutional History.”
Addresses: 27 Queen’s Gardens, Lancaster Gate, W.; and The Cottage,
Sheringham, Norfolk
Title:
London Gazette
1154
23
March 1900 Crown Office,
March 22, 1900
THE Queen has been pleased, by Warrant under
Her Majesty's Royal Sign Manual, dated the 21st March 1900, to appoint, in
pursuance of 51 and 52 Vic., c.41, Sir Forrest Fulton, Q. C., to
exercise as Recorder of the City of London all such judicial functions as have
heretofore been exercised by Recorders of the said city.
Title: Post Office
London Directory
1154
1902
London Court
Fulton Sir Forrest
K.C., LL.B. (Recorder of the City of
London), The
Recorders chambers, Guildhall EC & 27 Queen's gardens,
Lancaster Gate W.
Title:
The Ladies' Who's Who
1154
1924
Fulton, Lady
d. of J. B. Nicholson, Esq., m. 1875 Sir Forrest Fulton, K. C., J.P.
Res.: The Cottage, Sheringham.
Title:
Blackwood Papers
1281
1853
Letterbook
of William Blackwood & Son, publishers
Letter
from James Fulton agriculturist
Title: Short-Title Catalogue of Printed Books
1281
1853-1856
Fulton, James
of Glasgow
Observations on Cheese-Making, showing that
cheese of as good quality may be made in Scotland as in England, with hints
for introducing improvement into the Scottish dairies.
The Sewerage Problem solved: or the history,
philosophy, and importance of Liquid Manuring. Having reference to a plan
(suitable to other places) for applying the sewage of the City of Glasgow to
agricultural purposes. Also, the claim of the project as an investment for
capital.
Title:
Papers of William Wilson &
Son, Tartan Manufacturers, Bannockburn
1301
1792-1828
letters of John Fulton of Kilmarnock,
haberdasher and woollen-draper:
6663 (1792), 6714 (1810), 6730 (1813), 6737
(1814), 6745 (1815), 6760
(1816), 6768(1818), 6779(1819), 6791(1820),
6835 (1823), 6868 (1825),
6881 (1826), 6897 (1827), 6915 (1828)
Title: Gentleman's Magazine
1331
July 1854
Promotions & Preferments
June 19th.
William Young, Lewis M. Wilkins, Alexander
Campbell, and Stephen Fulton esqs. to be Members of the Executive
Council, and Lewis M. Wilkins to be clerk of the Executive Council, for Nova
Scotia.
Title:
Papers of William Wilson & Son, Tartan Manufactiirers, Bannockburn
1353
1792,
1795
letters of William Fulton of Kilmarnock, merchant