CASE OF MRS. PRICE. (Hansard, 9 May 1845)

§ Mr. T. Duncombe
rose to call attention to the following petition, which it is necessary to insert in order to make the matter intelligible:— PETITION OF ELIZEY PRICE. The humble petition of the undersigned showeth,—That on Thursday, the 3rd of April, your petitioner attended at the Cross Inn at the Town's-end, in the parish of Kingswinford, to give evidence on behalf of a Mrs. Beaumont, who was charged with assaulting a common informer named Joseph Newey. The case was heard by Samuel Stone Briscoe, Esq., a magistrate, who bound Mrs. Beaumont over to keep the peace. That after the above case was decided, your petitioner was standing with other persons in the justice room, when the aforesaid Joseph Newey violently assaulted your petitioner, in the presence of the said Samuel Stone Briscoe. That after your petitioner had recovered from the immediate effects of the blow she received, she applied to the said Samuel Stone Briscoe for a summons or warrant against the aforesaid Joseph Newey, that she might have justice in the case. That the said Samuel Stone Briscoe refused your petitioner's request. That on Friday, the 4th of April, your petitioner applied to William Foster, Esq., one of Her Majesty's Justices of the Peace, living in the parish of Kingswinford, and that he, the said William Foster, Esq., issued a summons, requiring the attendance of the aforesaid Joseph Newey, at the Public Office, Wordsley, in the aforesaid parish of Kingswinford. That on Monday, the 7th of April, your petitioner attended at the said Public Office at Wordsley, and preferred the charge of assault above mentioned against the aforesaid Joseph Newey, before Mr. William Robins, Mr. William Foster, and Mr. George Bate, three of Her Majesty's Justices of the Peace, by whom the said Joseph Newey was, on the evidence of your petitioner, corroborated by Thomas Simmons and George Wells, officers in the Staffordshire County Police, convicted and fined by the aforesaid Justices. That after the said conviction of the said Joseph Newey, he the said Joseph Newey, I exultingly pulled a paper from his pocket, and told the bench it was a warrant from Samuel Stone Briscoe, Esq., to take your petitioner to the Cross Inn public house at the Townsend, Kingswinford, for an alleged assault com- 411 mitted by your petitioner on the said Joseph Newey. That on the evening of Tuesday, the 8th of April, about six o'clock, the said Joseph Newey, accompanied by James Baker, who represented himself to be a constable, came to your petitioner's house, and took your petitioner forcibly away, and conveyed her to a public house, called the Horseshoes. That your petitioner's husband, and several respectable persons, offered to give bail for your petitioner's appearance at any time when required; but the said James Baker refused to liberate your petitioner, but said he would do so as soon as William Onions, the constable, came. That when the said William Onions came, your petitioner was not liberated. That about twelve o'clock, the aforesaid James Baker wanted your petitioner to accompany him to his house, a distance of nearly two miles; that your petitioner refused to do so, on which Onions said, 'Damn her, if she wont go chain her to the post,' meaning an upright iron post which supports the front of the chimney in the tap room of the said Horseshoes Inn. That your petitioner was thereupon handcuffed to the said iron post, and was there kept till after six o'clock the next morning, no person remaining with your petitioner. That no bedclothes, or other accommodation for sleeping, was provided your petititioner, except a wooden bench, which was at an inconvenient distance from the post, and was immovable. That, consequently, your petitioner was compelled to pass the night sitting on a chair, the only alleviation to her painful condition being a cushion lent by the landlady. That your petitioner is in the family way, and had been so for more than seven months at the period when she was so chained to the post for a whole night, as above stated, and that in consequence of this cruel treatment your petitioner's health is materially impaired. That after your petitioner was released from the post, as before described, she was taken on foot by the said James Baker to the Fir-tree House, the residence of Samuel Stone Briscoe, Esq., a distance of four miles. That your petitioner was taken into the presence of Samuel Stone Briscoe, Esq., no person but the said James Baker, in whose custody your petitioner was, being admitted. That the said Samuel Stone Briscoe told Baker to liberate your petitioner, saying he could not do anything in the case till Thursday, the 17th April, following, when your petitioner was required to attend at the Cross Inn, Towns-end, Kingswinford. That your petitioner was then liberated without sureties for her appearance, or her case being at all gone into. That on the said Thursday, the 17th day of April, your petitioner attended at the Cross Inn public house aforesaid, and was again taken 412 into custody by the said James Baker, and placed before the court, consisting of Samuel Stone Briscoe, Esq., John Deheane, Esq. (of Wolverhampton), and William Henry Cope, Esq. That the charge of assault was preferred by the aforesaid Joseph Newey against your petitioner. That the court, after hearing the evidence of the aforesaid Joseph Newey, and Thomas Simmons, and George Wells, policemen, on oath, and a statement by Samuel Stone Briscoe, Esq., who signed the warrant on which your petitioner was apprehended, not on oath, dismissed the charge of assault against your petitioner, who was thereupon liberated. That your petitioner, by the above cruel proceeding has been put to great inconvenience and expense, and endured much suffering; and your petitioner is informed she cannot obtain redress in the case but by action at law against the said Samuel Briscoe, Esq., who issued the warrant, and the said James Baker and William Onions, who detained your petitioner in custody. That your petitioner is poor, and unable to institute such proceedings for want of the necessary funds. Your petitioner therefore humbly prays your Honours' House to institute an inquiry into the allegations contained in this petition, and apply such remedy as to you in your wisdom may appear proper, and which will meet the justice of the case. And your petitioner will ever pray ELIZEY X PRICE. Witness—JOHN RANKIN. The hon. Member said a case of greater oppression than that stated in the petition had never occurred. It was a disgrace to the magistracy and the laws of the country. He hoped that when the matter had been investigated, Mr. Briscoe would not be allowed to remain any longer in the commission of the peace. The hon. Member concluded by moving that the petition should be referred to a Select Committee, who should be directed to report their opinion on the matters contained in it.

§ Sir J. Graham
said, that in consequence of information which had reached him officially with respect to this case, he had already instituted a partial inquiry by writing to Mr. Briscoe, and requesting him to offer such explanations as he might think proper to send. The conduct of Mr. Briscoe was only a part of the case. The latter part of it, which attracted most attention, and which was well calculated to excite a warm feeling of indignation, was the misconduct of a constable. It was, he believed, perfectly true, that under a warrant for an assault, a married woman, 413 seven months advanced in pregnancy, was handcuffed, and remained chained to a post in a room of an inn a whole night. He had caused inquiry to be made whether that constable was appointed under the Rural Police Act, and if so, he had given orders for his dismissal: and if he were a parochial constable, then it was necessary that he should be indicted. For that part of the transaction Mr. Briscoe was not responsible. He could not, however, defend the conduct of Mr. Briscoe, as he thought he ought to have proceeded by summons and not by warrant. There was a variance between the statements of the two parties, but undoubtedly the matter ought not to rest where it was, and he was prepared to direct that an official and a full inquiry should take place.

§ Mr. Wakley
thought that the brutal conduct of the constable arose entirely out of the misconduct of the magistrate, and he trusted the inquiry would embrace that which was done by both.

§ Mr. T. Duncombe
said, that after the explanation of the right hon. Baronet, he would ask leave of the House to withdraw his Motion.