HC Deb 21 July 1863 vol 172 cc1175-83
MR. H. BERKELEY

said, he rose to move— That the grievances suffered by William Bewicke, as detailed in his Petition to this House, presented upon the 28th of April last, are such as entitle him to the consideration of Her Majesty's Government. And he wished to invite the attention of the Law Officers of the Crown and the legal Members of that House to the anomalous state of the law which the facts he was about to relate disclosed. Mr. William Bewicke, of Threepwood Hall, in the county of Northumberland, a man of good position and ancient family, having been defeated in an action at law, the sheriff proceeded to levy on his property. The officers employed by the Sheriff of Northumberland for that duty were little less—and he used the words advisedly—than banditti. The records of the petty sessions of Hexham from 1840 to 1861 showed that the first sheriff's officer had been a delinquent frequently brought before the magistrates for sundry breaches of the peace—once for beating his wife, for which he was compelled to find security; and on another occasion for deserting her. That was the gentleman appointed to represent the sheriff and uphold the dignity of the law. The next man was one whom the records of the magistrates' court pointed out to be much connected with poachers, to have been guilty of breaches of the peace, and on one occasion to have been convicted of perjury, and sentenced to seven years' transportation. That sentence was not fully carried out, but after four years of penal servitude the prisoner was released with that admired document a ticket of leave. The third sheriff's officer had been convicted of several assaults, of poaching, of stealing, for which he suffered three months' imprisonment; again of robbery, for which he received twenty-eight days' hard labour; again of stealing from the person, and for larceny he underwent two years' imprisonment. Another of these sheriff's officers had been taken up three times for breaches of the peace, and once for drunkenness. The last of their number was one of the most expert and notorious poachers in Northumberland; and it might always be observed that poachers and thieves congregated together. These were the persons employed to make the levy upon Threepwood Hall, Mr. Bewicke's property, for about £49. When Mr. Bewicke saw that gang approaching, with a sort of modern Jonathan Wilde at their head, it was not surprising that he should have objected to let them into his house. It was not the mere levy he dreaded, but the abstraction of things beyond it, and he accordingly told them that he would not admit them into his louse, but that there was sufficient property outside, which they might take to satisfy the levy. Words arose, and the leader of the banditti produced a brace of pistols, which he handed to his followers. Mr. Bewicke then went for a revolver, and said, "If that is your game, I am perfectly prepared for its being carried out." The bailiff then became civil, and Mr. Bewicke retired within his citidel, fortifying the door, and barricading the windows. The weather was cold, and the bailiff's followers came to him and asked for some refreshment. Being a good-natured man, Mr. Bewicke passed them out some whisky and other things. Next day, unfortunately, he determined to fire his pistol out of the window, in order that it might be cleaned. He told the sheriff's officers that he was about to do so, saying, "Get out of the way; are you all safe?" Their answer was "All right, sir!" Mr. Bewicke fired the pistol, and thought no more about it. The men went away to the magistrates, and asked for a warrant against him for obstructing them in the discharge of their duty, and firing upon them with a pistol loaded with ball, with intent to murder or do them some bodily injury. The magistrates accepted their accusation, and issued the warrant. It was executed, and Mr. Bewicke was carried before the justices. The oaths of these worthless vagabonds were believed, and, strange to say, the magistrates committed that gentleman to prison, at the same time demanding bail for £2,000, which was found in half-an-hour among his neighbours. The assizes approached; Mr. Bewicke, with great imprudence, not having before his eyes the old axiom that the man who pleads his own cause has a fool for his client, defended himself. He attached very little weight to the evidence of men whose characters were so infamous. He was wrong. He was tried before Mr. Justice Keating, found guilty, and sentenced to four years' penal servitude. No doubt the presiding Judge did his duty as conscientiously as English Judges were generally known to do. No doubt the jury were twelve honest men, and not more stupid than jurymen usually were. That, then, was the first act of this strange drama. Sensation dramas were the rage, but the next act would furnish materials for a more extraordinary play of that kind than had yet appeared, not excepting Mr. Tom Taylor's "Ticket of Leave Man." Mr. Bewicke was consigned to prison. He went, an educated man, among felons; he was forced into the felon's dress, partook of felon's fare, was locked up in the felon's den, and had daily to associate with unlettered villany. No position could have been more unfortunate than that of Mr. Bewicke. Everything around him appeared gloomy. Three more years of that horrible servitude had yet to be endured, when a ray of light broke in upon him from a quarter whence it was little expected. He had had a servant—faithful and attached—a housekeeper. He had called her as a witness. The poor woman's feelings overpowered her. She became hysterical, and she broke down. Her evidence was of no avail. But the moment Mr. Bewicke was consigned to prison this woman seemed to have but one all-absorbing idea—that of unmasking the conspiracy which she knew to exist, liberating her master, and clearing his character. With astonishing perseverance, she proceeded to the work. Though having no legal adviser, she brought together a mass of evidence which convinced her that her master's innocence must appear. She threw herself into a railway train and came to London. Not knowing to whom she should address herself, she chanced to go to Mr. Serjeant Shee, who received her in the kindest manner, looked over the evidence she laid before him, said it was worthy of every consideration, and recommended her to a solicitor of great respectability and skill. Mr. Ivimey, of Staple's Inn, the solicitor alluded to, looked into the case, and shortly afterwards found himself in Northumberland. He obtained warrants against the whole gang who swore Mr. Bewicke into prison, and brought them to trial. The result of the trial was that on the 1st of March 1862, one of the gang was tried for a misdemeanour at Newcastle, before Mr. Justice Mellor, and sentenced to two year's imprisonment; two others were tried for conspiracy and swearing that they had been fired at with a bullet by Mr. Bewicke, another of the gang having turned Queen's evidence and assisted in convicting his fellow-scoundrels. The Queen's pardon—he was almost ashamed to repeat the word—reached Mr. Bewicke. He was released from prison; but that pardon found a very different man from him on whom the sentence had fallen. Mr. Bewicke went into prison a giant of strength, of indomitable spirit. He quitted prison heartbroken, his health ruined—a debilitated dwarf. He went to his home, which he had left with every appliance of wealth and comfort; he found it dilapidated, the whole of his furniture removed and sold; the bare walls only remaining, with his faithful housekeeper—an honour to her sex—keeping watch within. Mr. Bewicke was shocked and astonished. He asked how was this? It appeared that the trustees of Greenwich Hospital, as lords of the manor of Langley (on which Mr. Bewicke's property was situate), granted to them by the Crown on the attainder of the Earl of Derwent water, in exercise of the right by which they claimed to be entitled to the goods of felons, had seized Mr. Bewicke's furniture three months after his conviction, and sold it. Mr. Bewicke said he was not a felon, but an innocent man. He demanded his goods. The trustees said, "No; we have sold your goods." "What," he again asked, "have you sold them for? They were worth £1,600 to £1,800." The trustees replied, "We sold them for £430. We have no objection to give you the proceeds of the sale." "But," said Mr. Bewicke, "I am advised you had no right to do as you have done. I will bring an action against you." The Commissioners of Greenwich Hospital laughed him to scorn, saying, "You bring an action against us! You have no locus standi. You were a felon when your goods were seized. You remained a felon while in prison, and till you were relieved from your felony by the pardon of the Crown; consequently you had lost the rights of citizenship. To attack us you are powerless." Was not that a case of grievous hardship and oppression? Was that a state of the law that ought to exist? Was an innocent man to be thrown into prison, and, being innocent, by a miserable fiction to be considered guilty until he was relieved of his guilt by the pardon of the Crown? How could the Queen pardon an innocent man? When a man's innocence was established, he should have restored to him the full rights of an English citizen. It was a case which came home to them all. Any one—the Secretary of State for the Home Department himself—might become the victim of a conspiracy, and what happened at Threep-wood might happen at his House at Falloden. He ventured to say, if the right hon. Baronet were placed in the position of Mr. Bewicke, with his sensitive mind he would not have survived three weeks' imprisonment. Fancy the right hon. Baronet's feelings in having to go and hunt for the family pictures of the Greys at the old curiosity shops in Wardour Street. He hoped the right hon. Baronet would not adopt a miserable stingy policy in this case, but give to Mr. Bewicke that compensation he had a right to expect at the hands of the Government.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That, in the opinion of this House, the grievances suffered by William Bewicke, as detailed in his Petition to this House, presented upon the 28th day of April last, are such as entitle him to the consideration of Her Majesty's Government."—(Mr. Berkeley.)

SIR GEORGE GREY

said, he had not heard the whole of the statement of the hon. Gentleman, but he was aware of the facts of the case, which certainly was one of a very peculiar character. Mr. Bewicke was a gentleman of family and property in Northumberland. A charge was brought against him of having resisted a sheriff's officer in the ordinary execution of the law, and a pistol was fired by him. He was indicted, and the question was whether the pistol was loaded with ball, and whether he fired it with the intention of injuring or taking away life. So far as the law and its administration were concerned, there was no failure of justice. The evidence was entirely satisfactory to the Judge and jury before whom Mr. Bewicke was tried. He was convicted and sentenced to penal servitude for four years. The property of the convict did not escheat to the Crown, as in ordinary cases, but, owing to the peculiar jurisdiction of the locality where the property was situated, to the Commissioners of Greenwich Hospital, by whom it was sold off, after having been first offered to the family. After the lapse of some time, the witnesses upon whose evidence Mr. Bewicke had been found guilty, were convicted of perjury upon the material point, which was as to whether the pistol had been loaded and discharged with intent to do injury. Of course, upon their conviction, Mr. Bewicke was immediately discharged from prison. He then applied for his property. The Commissioners of Greenwich Hospital could not restore it, having sold it, but they did all they could legally do; they offered to restore to Mr. Bewicke the proceeds of the sale of the property.

MR. H. BERKELEY

Minus £50 deducted for law expenses.

SIR GEORGE GREY

repeated, that the Commissioners restored all that they had legally power to restore, for they could not appropriate the funds of the hospital to compensate Mr. Bewicke. Mr. Bewicke now said the sale was below the value, and asked for compensation upon the basis of the difference between his estimate of the value and the amount the property produced when sold. He did not know how it was possible to comply with that request. It was not a case in which the law or the administration of the law had failed, but it arose from the imperfection which sometimes attached to human evidence. From that cause there was, in the first instance, a failure of justice; but it must be borne in mind that Mr. Bewicke had, in a great measure, brought the result upon himself by his own conduct in resisting the execution of a legal warrant. It was a subject for commiseration, but it was one of a class of cases where a failure of justice occurred and innocent persons were injured. But the fact was, the law provided no means of compensation. There was, indeed, one case in which a person who had been unjustly convicted was afterwards pardoned, and he received compensation by a special vote of the House. If, however, the hon. Gentleman wished to alter the law in relation to the operation of a royal pardon, that was a fit question for consideration in that House, but it could not be decided upon a discussion applying to a particular case. He was persuaded that there were many cases in which the parties had a better title to redress than Mr. Bewicke.

MR. H. BERKELEY

observed, that he had brought forward a case of the greatest cruelty, equal to the case of Mr. Barber, who was compensated, and not one of the statements he had laid before the House had been answered by the Home Secretary. If the right hon. Gentleman did not give him some assurance that the matter should be considered by the Government with a view to compensating Mr. Bewicke, he should feel it his duty to take the sense of the House upon his Motion.

SIR FITZROY KELLY

said, the statement of his hon. Friend had been met by the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State with a degree of coolness which might be very becoming in the administration of justice, but which was somewhat out of place when a claim was made for compensation for injuries of a nature which he trusted seldom occurred. It was impossible to listen to the details of the case without feeling that there was a grievous defect in the law; and if the law could not be amended to meet each particular case as it occurred, the call was imperative for the immediate merciful and liberal consideration of the Government. In a case to which allusion had been made a gentleman was indicted as an accomplice in the forgery of several deeds, and convicted, and after suffering perhaps more severely than the gentleman whose claims were now before the House, he was proved to be guiltless of the offence laid to his charge. Mr. Barber received the Queen's pardon, and when he (Sir FitzRoy Kelly) brought his complaint before the House, the Government did not turn a deaf ear to him, but appointed a Select Committee to investigate the subject, upon whose Report the House gave its unanimous assent to a compensation to the amount of £5,000. Except that in the case before them a sentence of penal servitude was passed, while in that of Mr. Barber actual transportation took place, there was no substantial difference between them. He cast no blame upon the judge nor upon the jury; but now that the facts were known, the Government were bound to grant some compensation to Mr. Bewicke. The Secretary of State had said that that gentleman had done wrong in resisting the officers of the law, but he had only done what every man was entitled to do in cases of civil law. He pointed out property that might be seized to satisfy the levy, and he refused, as he had a right, to admit the officers into his house. The pistol was discharged by him after warn- ing, and upon an assurance that all was right; so that his conduct was not so culpable as was represented. He did not think the Commissioners of Greenwich Hospital were to blame. They had acted as it was their duty as trustees to act. He hoped the case would be remembered whenever he or some other Member brought before the House the question of an appeal in criminal cases. Did there exist an appeal in criminal cases, there would have been a new trial or a reversal of the verdict, which would have restored Mr. Bewicke to all his civil rights without the insulting offer of a pardon for an offence of which he had not been guilty. However, passing by the greater question, and confining their attention for the present to the individual case, there could be no doubt that injury had been done, that compensation ought to be made, and that a precedent for that course did exist. He therefore hoped the Government would give an assurance that the question should receive their liberal consideration.

THE SOLICITOR GENERAL

said, he hoped that the House would not be led away too much by their feelings, and would look less at particular cases and more at the general law, because at the foundation there lay a rule of law which was worthy of consideration. The case had, no doubt, been stated in a pathetic manner by the hon. Gentleman, and had made an impression on the feelings of every hon. Member who had heard it. It was undeniable that a great hardship had been suffered by Mr. Bewicke, but the hardship was no greater than that suffered by any person who was, without cause subject to a bonâ fide criminal prosecution, and was sentenced accordingly. The English law had provided no remedy in such cases; and the one question was, whether a Court of Criminal Appeal should be constituted to deal with them. But even a court of appeal would not have met the case, because the evidence was sufficient; the verdict, as the evidence stood, was a right one, and the judgment rightly followed that verdict. As the House knew, the greatest legal authorities and the Judges generally had felt that it would be very difficult to establish, with the necessary safeguards, a court of criminal appeal They might hope that the difficulties were not insuperable, but in the absence of such a tribunal the House ought not to deal with every individual grievance as establishing a claim to com- pensation. Another large question involved was as to the charge which would be thrown upon the public if the principle were adopted. A gentleman had obviously no more right to compensation than the poorest person, and the number of cases of that character was much greater than was commonly supposed. In Mr. Bewicke's case he was not vindicated by an ex parte inquiry at the Home Office, which was the general course of things, but by a sort of cross proceeding—namely, a prosecution of the witnesses for perjury. The decision then might be fallible, though in the present instance it was, no doubt, according to justice. A somewhat similar case would be remembered, in which a clergyman was convicted of a very serious charge, lost his appointment in consequence, and was imprisoned: but the principle witness against him was afterwards convicted of perjury, and he then received a pardon. That would be a case for a claim against the Government, and nobody could tell how many such claims would be made, or what would be their magnitude, because, in the exceptional case of Mr. Barber, the House of Commons, acting on the Report of a Select Committee, had thought fit to award a pecuniary compensation. Hitherto the law had treated hardships of the kind, severe though they might be, as hardships to which the citizens and subjects of the realm must submit, as being incident to the unavoidable possibility of miscarriage in the administration of justice; and he did not think it would he wise to deal with these in an exceptional way, though it might be proper to consider the expediency of introducing a general law for the investigation of such cases and for giving compensation in some way or other.

Question put.

The House divided:—Ayes 20; Noes 22: Majority 2.