Mr. Paulett Mildmaysaid, he had a Petition to present upon this subject, signed by a number of the most respectable persons in Winchester and its neighbourhood. The petitioners were not bound to Mr. Bingham Baring by any political ties, nor were they at all under his influence, many of them having been opposed to him at the last election. The petitioners prayed for an investigation into the circumstances of this case, and they declared their belief that Mr. Bingham Baring was guiltless of the things that had been laid to his charge. The petition had been signed, in the course of forty-eight hours (Sunday intervening) by no less than 360 persons, who expressed their gratitude to the Magistrates, whose decision of conduct had last winter relieved them from the continuance of those dreadful disorders that were at that time committed. They expressed their earnest wish that one of these Magistrates should be cleared from those unfounded calumnies that had been directed against him. People were now ready enough to forget the feelings with which they had once been agitated, and he knew that it was not very flattering to their pride to remind them of those feelings, and of the fears that then perplexed 679 and disturbed them; but he felt it his duty to remind them of these things. He called on them to remember the taunts that were then directed against the magistracy for supineness—to remember that his Majesty had called on them to display energy, decision, and resolution—and that his Majesty's Ministers had appealed to them to perform their duty, and threatened them, that if they did not, they must expect to incur his Majesty's displeasure. The Magistrates had done their duty; they had interfered effectually, but their services were now forgotten. The Judges who went on the Special Commission praised them for their conduct: even prayers were offered up, thanking Providence for the interference which had saved the people at that time. He presented this Petition because he was anxious, with the petitioners, to relieve a sensitive and manly mind from that state of suspense which every honourable man must feel to be most painful.
§
The Petition was read as follows:
To the Honourable the Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland in Parliament assembled;
The Humble Petition of the undersigned Inhabitant Householders of the City and Suburbs of Winchester, and of the Gentry, Clergy, and Yeomanry residing in the immediate neighbourhood thereof,
Showeth—That your Petitioners have read with feelings of indignation the allegations which are contained in the Petition presented to your Honourable House on the 22nd of August last by Thomas and Caroline Deacle, of Marwell Farm, in the vicinity of this City.
That the statements made in the said Petition appear to your Petitioners to contain such gross misrepresentations, as to render it necessary for your Petitioners to express to your Honourable House the opinion which is entertained in this city and neighbourhood relative to the conduct of the individuals against whom such injurious statements have been thus artfully and maliciously sent forth.
That your Petitioners have noticed with deep regret the Petitions which have recently been presented to your honourable House from distant parts of the country on behalf of the said Thomas and Caroline Deacle; not on account of the inquiry which is sought by such Petitions, but because your Petitioners feel convinced that they have been sent up to your honourable House under the erroneous impressions which the statements contained in the Petitions of the said Thomas and Caroline Deacle were evidently intended to produce in remote parts of the country, where the real facts of the case are unknown, and where
680
the characters of the several parties are not duly appreciated.
That your Petitioners take the earliest opportunity of recording their opinion, and expressing to your honourable House the very strong feelings which prevail in this city and neighbourhood as to the calumnies which have been thus industriously propagated against Messrs. Francis and Bingham Baring, and other Magistrates of this county, to whose active, judicious, and unwearied exertions, your Petitioners conceive they are, in a great measure, indebted for the restoration of the public peace in November last—a period when this county was in a state of unparalleled excitement and too well grounded alarm, and when, it should be remembered, it was, in almost every instance, found impracticable to procure the due execution of the Magistrates' warrants without the aid of military.
That several of your Petitioners were present at the trial which took place in this city at the last Assizes, and witnessed with unfeigned regret the situation in which the Messrs. Baring were unavoidably placed, in consequence of the only individuals of whose testimony they could have availed themselves having been made co-defendants, obviously, as appeared to your Petitioners, for the sole purpose of excluding their evidence, and exposing the Messrs. Baring to the overcharged statements of the two individuals, on whose evidence a verdict was returned against Mr. Bingham Baring alone.
That should your honourable House see fit to order an investigation into the facts of the case, your Petitioners would hail with satisfaction a proceeding so well calculated to elicit the truth, and to place the characters of the several parties in their proper light. And your Petitioners desire further to express their conviction, that a full exposure of the real circumstances of the case would render the same feelings which exist in this city and its vicinity, as to the conduct of the Messrs. Baring, generally prevalent throughout the country at large.
Colonel Evanssaid, he had to present a Petition with the same prayer, from Tonbridge, in Kent; but declaring a very different opinion on the subject. He would only now observe, that as indulgence was asked to be shown to the conduct of the Magistrates, on account of the excitement that existed in November last, he thought an equal degree of indulgence ought to be shown to the poor people who had engaged in these riots, on account of the severe distress that drove them to commit these offences.
Mr. Humeonly wished to say, that he seemed to have been guilty of some injustice to the persons whose petition he had presented when he did not have that read, 681 and yet, when he suffered the petition just now presented to be read to the House. He must say, that that reading, and the statement of its contents, were against the understanding that there should be no discussion previous to that upon the appointment of a Committee. He would only add, that the Petition he presented was signed by 246 persons in six hours.
Mr. Paulett Mildmaysaid, he had not entered into the case at all, but merely stated the feelings and wishes of the petitioners.
Mr. Baringadmitted that it had been agreed there should be no discussion, but there was no agreement that the petitions presented should not be read at length. The petition presented by the hon. member for Middlesex, was said to come from Winchester, but he, (Mr. Baring) having carefully read it over, was at a loss to believe it was sent to that House by the inhabitants of that city, for he asserted most distinctly, that the petitioners committed the most marked mistakes in their statement of the circumstances of the case. They stated in distinct terms, that Mr. Walter Long, a Magistrate, had put the handcuffs on Deacle, when the fact was, that that gentleman not only had not done so, but actually was not present at the time of the transaction, having been otherwise engaged in a part of the county several miles distant from the place where the whole affair took place. He wished the hon. Member had read the Petition before he presented it, if he wished, as he professed to do, that justice should be done to the parties concerned. The petition now presented by the hon. member for Winchester, was signed by all the people of the first respectability in the place—by the merchants, bankers, the clergy, and all the persons connected with the college there, while he would defy any one to say, that there were more than six respectable shopkeepers among those who had signed that presented by the hon. member for Middlesex.
Mr. Humesaid, he was not bound to answer for the situation in life of the persons who signed the petition: he believed them to be respectable.
Colonel Evanssaid, that if the statement of the hon. member for Thetford were correct, it only showed that the farmers signed the petition in favour of their brother-farmers, while the gentry and clergy signed the one in favour of a Magistrate.
§ Sir Thomas Baringasserted, that the petition now before the House in favour of Mr. Bingham Baring, was signed by persons of all classes, and particularly by a number of the yeomen of the county, persons, precisely in the same rank and sphere of life as Mr. Deacle: it could not, therefore, be regarded in the light in which the hon. and gallant Officer was pleased to place it.
§ Sir Charles Wetherellsaw affixed to the petition which had been just presented, the signatures of clergymen and professional men, many of them his friends, who would not have come forward but at the call of justice. Therefore, he thought that the gallant Colonel had made a most censorious and unjust charge, in drawing the distinction which he had done. He seemed to suppose that the gentlemen who had signed this petition, had done so on account of the rank of Mr. Baring; but he was certain that they would not take such a course with respect to Mr. Baring, or any other person. If the gallant Colonel withdrew the sentiment, there was an end of the matter; if not, the gallant Colonel had made a most unjust and unfeeling observation on persons of the highest honour.
Colonel Evanssaid, all he had asserted was, that as the petitioners, in the present instance, moved in the rank of the accused, they were likely to have a bias in favour of them, while those who signed the other petition, and moved in a different rank, would probably be more favourable to the complaining parties.
§ Colonel Trenchasserted, that this was only a repetition of the imputation to which his hon. and learned friend objected. The petition presented on behalf of the Deacles, was well drawn up, by a clever and skilful hand, and calculated to raise a great prejudice against the Magistrate whose conduct was in question. He hoped that in the inquiry upon this subject, the character of the persons concerned, and the character of those who signed the petition, would be borne in mind: they had on one side, a petition signed by persons of the highest worth and respectability, and on the other, a petition containing the representation of Mr. and Mrs. Deacle, whose character, he hoped, would be thoroughly examined when the matter came before a Committee. He believed that the whole would be found to be a conspiracy, not so much to inflict injury on the person against 683 whom it professed to aim, but on one of the most liberal, most enlightened, able, and excellent men in that House, or in the country. He believed that through the son, it was intended to inflict a wound upon the father.
§ Colonel Trenchsaid, certainly not to the gallant Colonel, who had stated, and stated truly, that he had no connection with the matter, except so far as his public duty as a Member of that House went. He was not bound to say to whom he did allude, and he did not wish to do so, as the persons to whom he might allude, had not the power to reply to what a Member said in his place in that House.
§ Mr. Huntsaid, he had no doubt that there was a gross and foul conspiracy,—a conspiracy against an unoffending man and woman. He was of opinion that grosser, fouler, or more unfounded charges, were never made against any man or woman in this country.
§ Mr. Baring,with respect to what had been said as to the signatures of the farmers and of gentlemen, wished to observe, that the petition presented by the hon. member for Winchester had been shewn to the farmers assembled there at a dinner on the market-day, and that they signed it without an exception.
§ Petition laid on the Table.
§ Mr. Huntsaid, he should not trouble the House with the pedigree of the petitioners whose names were subscribed to that which he held in his hand. He would just say, by way of illustration, ho would warrant one fact—that, though it was upon the same subject as the last petition, it was signed neither by a Mayor, a Magistrate, nor a Clergyman. It was the petition of the Western Branch of the great Northern Union of the working classes of the metropolis, held at the Bazaar coffee-shop, in Castle-street, Oxford-market. The subscribers designated the petition as that of the petitioners on behalf of the Union.
§ Sir Charles Wetherellobjected to the petition being received, on account of the irregularity of the manner in which it was signed. It did not appear whether the parties signing formed a portion of the meeting at which the petition was agreed to.
§ The Speakerobserved, the practice was 684 against the petition being received, because it was not shown, or even stated by the petitioners, that they were part of that body whose representations or complaint they made to the House. They acknowledged they petitioned on behalf of the Union, not stating they were members of the Union. Finally, it was a maxim in the Common-law, that they, as an Union, not being a Corporation, could not have been empowered to sign for any others of that Union but themselves.
§ Mr. Huntmerely observed, that it was very respectfully worded, and only joined in the prayer of both the former petitions that an inquiry should be instituted. Under the advice of so high an authority, however, he should be ruled by former precedents.
§ Petition withdrawn.
Mr. Humepresented petitions from High Wycombe, in Bucks, and from Louth, in the county of Lincoln, praying for an inquiry into the case of Mr. and Mrs. Deacle; and a petition from Thomas and Caroline Deacle, stating their case, and praying for redress.
Mr. O'Connellsaid, he had received a communication which led him to think that it would be extremely desirable for the ends of justice to postpone the motion of which an honourable and gallant Member had given notice, relative to the case of Mr. and Mrs. Deacle. He would therefore beg leave to suggest, to the hon. and gallant Officer, to postpone his motion for the present.
Colonel Evanssaid, that although he had fully intended to bring forward his motion to-night, still he had no objection to postpone it, if the hon. and learned member for Kerry was prepared to show that the ends of justice would be impeded by its being brought forward at present.
Mr. O'Connellsaid, that the parties having originally understood that a Committee was to be moved for, had since learned, that it was to be opposed by the Government, and it was to show that an inquiry ought to be granted that they now wished the matter to be postponed. The documents which he had seen, satisfied him that the parties were entitled to have an opportunity of making out their case.
§ Lord Althorpsaid, that he, as an individual Member, had no particular objection to the motion being postponed, if the hon. and gallant Member felt it right to do so; but he thought that postponing it, 685 unless a strong case of necessity were made out, would not be fair justice to the parties against whom the charges were made.
§ Mr. John Campbellsaid, it was known when the matter was before the House on a former occasion, that the motion for a Committee was to be postponed; and, consequently, the parties had had ample time to prepare their case. He therefore saw no good reason for a postponement now.
Mr. O'Connellobserved, that this was a question which might be brought before the House in various shapes—for instance, by motions for the production of documents. But it was extremely desirable that there should be but one discussion upon it. The question was one of vast importance in every point of view. It was important to know whether England was to be transferred to Ireland, and whether the same system of magistracy was to be introduced in this country as prevailed in Ireland—which, he hoped, would never be the case. Under the circumstances of the case, he advised the gallant and learned Member, not to make his motion at present.
§ Mr. Baringsaid, that whatever the learned member for Kerry might say of justice, what he now proposed was the grossest piece of injustice that could be done; and it was impossible for him to listen to the manner in which it was propounded, without being convinced that there did exist a conspiracy to oppress and to do a cruel injustice to an individual. He very well understood the threat conveyed by the manner and gestures of the learned Member, and was aware that he was at his mercy, or that of any other man who would choose to get up petitions from the dregs of the community, for the purpose of vilifying him, and slandering the character of his relatives. But he should be quite confident in appealing from the candour of the hon. and learned Member to the honour and feeling of a body of gentlemen—If the hon. and gallant Member should refuse to go on with his motion, he (Mr. Baring) would immediately submit one to the House. Although the learned Member might bring forward his calumnies day after day, and make himself the tool of this vile and dirty conspiracy, he (Mr. Baring) would make a motion, that under the difficulties of the case, the House should go on with the present inquiry, and he would not hereafter, con- 686 descend to answer any calumnies which might be uttered. He felt deeply on this subject, and hoped he should be excused if he had used any strong expressions. But if any hon. Member had a charge to bring forward, let him bring it forward fairly and manfully, and not advance it one day, and postpone it the next, for no other purpose than to create excitement and hostility.
Mr. O'Connellsaid, that having been assailed, he hoped the House would allow him to defend himself. Having been assailed by the hon. Member in a more brutal manner than he had ever been assailed in that House ["Order," "Chair."]
Sir Robert Inglisrose to order, and begged that the Speaker would have the kindness to state whether it was allowable for any Member of that House to address an hon. Member as having assailed him in what he termed a brutal manner.
Mr. O'Connellsaid, he did apologise at once. He had no hesitation in doing so. He had never meant what the word would imply—[The Speaker resumed his seat.] He had not identified himself with this transaction but as a Member of that House, having been called upon by the British subjects who alleged that a woman had been handcuffed—that a verdict had been returned against those who had been parties to that act—that the rich—the exceedingly rich—were in that House—and that the assailed had nobody to standby them, because the wealth, the power, and the station of their oppressors would bear them down. When these persons demanded an advocate in that House, if they had not a zealous one before, they had one zealous now, and he told the hon. Member, that the people of England should have an investigation. The hypocritical pretence—if such a one there had been—of looking for an investigation and at the same time crushing it by other means, should not continue. Conspiracy? What had he to do with your English conspiracies? He had been more assailed than any man that ever lived, and he could bear it patiently. He could bear even the self-exultation which shone upon him now. He would now suggest to his excellent friend to bring on his motion, that the House might see whether the feeling which was professed 687 was real. Let them have an investigation, and see whether it would be followed by an acquittal, which, notwithstanding all that had happened, he hoped might be the case. Let them see if now the inquiry would be resisted. If it were, he should know what to do.
Colonel Evanssaid, that he felt he must, under the circumstances, bring forward his motion. But he must first observe, that the moderation with which he had treated the subject was not fairly returned by the violent—as he must call it—and unprovoked language which was indulged in by some hon. Members. He really did not see that the hon. member for Kerry had said anything which called for the attack that had been made upon him. The word "conspiracy" had been used in the discussions, in a most unsparing and a most unwarrantable manner. What! because Members presented petitions from the people, was it to be said that they went about raking up petitions from low persons through the country? He considered such language an insult, and while he held a seat in that House he would not silently suffer it to be applied to him. The hon. and gallant Member then referred to the particulars of the case, reading from the Morning Herald a passage from the speech of the learned Judge upon the trial, condemning the unnecessary coercion applied to Mrs. Deacle, and also adverting to a letter, published by Mr. Bingham Baring, which, he said, had induced him to bring the matter before the House, as he conceived that letter to amount to an admission of the charges made against him. The former debate had taken such a turn that it was impossible for him not to take a further step in the matter, upon being applied to by Mr. and Mrs. Deacle to do so. The arguments used were not defensive, but criminatory. Then, as now, the imputation of conspiracy was freely thrown out. It was evident that if a conspiracy existed, the witnesses on the trial must have been perjured, and the Judge must have abandoned his duty. When a question of this nature was made the ground of imputations of which no tribunal in the country could take cognizance, he hoped the House would, for the sake of its own character, if not that of the magistracy, see the necessity of instituting an inquiry. If it were urged that that House had no right to inquire into the conduct of the Magistracy, he would 688 reply by referring to the opinion of the noble Lord now at the Head of the Home Department, who, in 1819, declared himself in favour of an inquiry into the conduct of the Magistrates at Manchester. He would also mention the case of Mr. Kenrick, in 1825 and 1826. The hon. member for Thetford then took a very different course from that which he now pursued. The Government did not, on that occasion, object to the inquiry which was sought for, but raised some difficulties as to certain papers, and the hon. member for Thetford said, that their doing so would almost lead to a suspicion that they meant to screen the individual. The hon. Gentleman concluded by moving for the appointment of a Select Committee to inquire into the allegations contained in the petitions of Mr. and Mrs. Deacle, respecting the conduct of the Magistracy of Winchester.
Mr. Lefevrethought, that the minds of the public would never be satisfied until the charges of the petitioners against his hon. friends should have been investigated by a Committee of that House. It was impossible that the conduct of those Magistrates could be justified otherwise than by showing what was the state of the country at the time of the transactions respecting which the petitioners complained. He admitted that there was one part of the conduct attributed to his hon. friends, which nothing could justify but resistance on the part of the persons arrested; he meant the handcuffing of Mrs. Deacle. But, after a careful examination of all the conflicting testimony that had been brought forward on the subject, it was his entire conviction, that that proceeding was the act of the constable himself, without any instructions or authority from Mr. Francis or Mr. Bingham Baring. Upon the whole, he thought that the public had dealt unfairly with his hon. friends, in giving to Mr. and Mrs. Deacle the benefit of their acquittal at the Assizes, and refusing to allow to Mr. Francis Baring the benefit of his actual acquittal in the action for damages, or to Mr. B. Baring the benefit of his virtual acquittal, for such the verdict of merely nominal damages must be considered. He thought, that under all the circumstances, the House ought to give his hon. friends an opportunity of setting themselves right with the public, by the investigation of a Select Committee; and he should, therefore, second the Motion.
§ Lord Althorpsaid, that when, on a former evening, he stated his intention to oppose the motion of his hon. and gallant friend (Colonel Evans), he did so with considerable reluctance, because he thought it probable that his taking that course might prejudice the parties accused. He felt so much doubt as to the course which he ought to take, that he had consulted others, for whose judgment he had much deference; and upon the best consideration, he had come to this conclusion, that it would not be consistent with his duty to vote for the Committee. He pledged his honour that he had come to that determination without any communication with the hon. member for Thetford. He made that assertion upon his honour as a Gentleman. He opposed the motion with great unwillingness, because he had a high esteem for the hon. member for Portsmouth (Mr. Francis Baring), and it gave him pain to do anything which might have the effect of preventing that Gentleman from setting himself right in the estimation of the public. But considering the nature of the investigation for which the Committee was required, and how little it was likely to give satisfaction to the public, he felt that it was inexpedient to go into it. As to Mr. and Mrs. Deacle, they had had their option to proceed against the Magistrates, either by a criminal information or by an action for damages, and they chose the latter course. Upon the trial it was proved that acts attributed to Mr. Francis Baring had been done by Mr. Bingham Baring, and that the former Gentleman, instead of having acted with harshness, had treated the petitioners with great humanity. But in the petition which it was now proposed to refer to a Committee the whole weight of the imputations was thrown upon Mr. Francis Baring, contrary to the evidence given upon the trial. That appeared to him to be a good reason to believe that the accusations against Mr. Francis Baring were wholly unfounded. If the persons accused were not Members of that House, would it be said that the House ought to inquire into their conduct by a Select Committee? Were every such complaint against every individual Magistrate to be brought before that House, and tried by a tribunal, the decision of which, as every Gentleman must know, would not give satisfaction, for many people out of doors would suppose that the Committee could not be impartial? 690 He hoped and trusted, therefore, that some other means of arriving at the truth of those transactions would be found. As to the case referred to by the gallant Member behind him (Colonel Evans), in which the conduct of Magistrates was proposed to be made the subject of inquiry by a Committee of the House, he had himself certainly moved for the Committee on that occasion. But there was no parallel between the present case and that. The transaction in Manchester was one of such magnitude, such enormity, and the conduct of the Magistrates appeared to him to be so unjustifiable, as to call for an investigation by a Committee of the whole House, In the case of the petitioners, the conduct blamed was that only of an individual Magistrate; and, therefore, not thinking that a Select Committee was a proper tribunal before which that conduct should be tried, he felt bound to oppose the Motion.
§ Lord Ebringtonfelt great regret at being obliged to oppose the Motion; and the more so, as he had had a communication that day with Mr. Bingham Baring, who was most desirous that the inquiry should be gone into. But he did not think that any person who had not been convinced by the clear and satisfactory statement of his hon. friend, the member for Portsmouth, would be convinced by the evidence taken before a Committee, especially as that evidence would not be given upon oath. If all questions like the present were to undergo an investigation before a Select Committee, every hon. Member must perceive, that the greatest inconvenience would be the consequence. He, therefore, felt it to be a matter of public duty to oppose the Motion.
Mr. Humehad hoped, when the noble Lord (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) pointed out the difficulty of meeting the wishes of the petitioners and of the accused Magistrates, by investigating the subject in a Select Committee, that the noble Lord would not have concluded without pointing out the course by which a satisfactory conclusion could be arrived at. It was not for the sake of Mr. and Mrs. Deacle that he so much desired that the whole of those transactions should be inquired into, but for the satisfaction of the public, in whose minds there was a strong impression that in this case justice had not been done, He admitted that 691 the statements of the two parties were very much at variance, but there were no allegations of either party which were not open to proof. In presenting petitions upon that subject, when it was first mentioned in the House, he had been satisfied to wait until he should see whether a satisfactory inquiry could be had in the Courts of Justice. But as that had not been the case, he could not see the justice of refusing the fair inquiry which was called for by both parties. He could not allow himself to be set down as one of a conspiracy for the course which he had thought it his duty to follow, and he would assure the hon. member for Thetford, that it was not his practice, as that hon. Gentleman had asserted, to bring up petitions from the dregs of society without regard to truth. He was sure that the hon. Gentleman had been betrayed into those expressions by the irritation of the moment, and that he would take the first opportunity of retracting them. When the petition which he (Mr. Hume) had that evening presented was put into his hands, his first inquiry was, whether the allegations contained in it were capable of proof? He was answered that they were capable of proof; and more, that the proof was at that moment ready to be produced. In that petition the Magistrates were charged, not only with unjustifiable harshness, but with subornation. He did not see in what way injury could be done by the inquiry which was demanded; and he thought that when the noble Lord (Lord Althorp) opposed the Committee, he ought to have been prepared to suggest a better means of inquiry. As the noble Lord had not done so, then he was driven to adopt the next best mode of coming at the truth which he could obtain. If his Majesty's Ministers were desirous to maintain the character of the magistracy, they ought themselves to be the first to go into the inquiry. It was not the character of the Messrs. Baring alone that was involved, but that of the whole magistracy of Hampshire; and although the question had not been made personal, and Mr. Bingham Baring was one of the accused, yet he was not the only one accused. There was one fact which had not been denied; that a female had been handcuffed without any appearance of resistance to excuse such harshness; but if the allegations were wholly groundless, he thought that when they had made such an impression 692 upon the public mind, it was incumbent upon his Majesty's Ministers to go into the inquiry for the satisfaction of the public.
The Attorney Generalthought, that the House must have been gratified by the tone of moderation in which the hon. member for Middlesex had supported the Motion, and must feel that the excuse which he had found for the hon. member for Thetford was creditable to himself. As to the proposed inquiry, he (the Attorney General) thought that it must turn, not altogether upon the allegations of the petition, but in a great degree upon the state of the country at the time when those transactions took place. It was to be considered that at that time no man could feel himself safe, and that depositions (whether true or false) had been made, deeply implicating Mr. and Mrs. Deacle in the proceedings of the rioters. An hon. Member behind him had censured Mr. Justice Taunton (who presided at the trial) for censuring the conduct of the Magistrates in attending to see their warrant executed. Certainly, in ordinary times, it was better that Magistrates should leave the execution of their warrants to the constable; but in a time of such great excitement and danger, he (the Attorney General) could not concur with the learned Judge in censuring the Magistrates for taking the trouble to see that the warrants were executed, and that the constable was not interrupted in his duty. He considered a Committee of that House a tribunal the least calculated that could be devised for attaining the ends of justice in the present case. The persons arrested under such circumstances were acquitted at the Assizes, and they proceeded by action against the Magistrates. The trial then took place; or, in other words, the Jury having thought that the assault against Mrs. Deacle was made out, gave such damages as they thought would meet the case. These proceedings having taken place, he really could not see why that House ought to be turned into a Court of Appeal. It was said, he knew, that both parties were desirous that a further investigation should take place; but, as far as he was able to foresee, he thought that neither side could gain any thing by such an event. It was also said that there were precedents to justify such an interference on the part of the House of Commons; but he must confess that 693 those which had already been mentioned did not appear to him to bear any resemblance to that which was now before them for consideration. With respect to the Manchester case, that was very different. What had taken place there was on a very large scale; besides which, the yeomanry were thanked by the Government for what they had done, which circumstance, of itself, rendered it imperative on those who thought that the yeomanry had misconducted themselves, to bring forward a specific motion on the subject in that House, and to demand that inquiry should take place. The case of Mr. Kenrick, which had also been mentioned, appeared to him to differ materially from that of Mr. and Mrs. Deacle; for in the former, though it was a Magistrate that was implicated, it ought also to be remembered, that he was likewise a Welsh Judge, and that there was no mode of getting him removed from that office in the event of misconduct but by an Address to the Crown. Another argument that had been made use of in favour of an inquiry in this case was, that it had made a great impression on the public mind, and that it ought, therefore, to be publicly investigated; but that impression appeared to him to be now rapidly subsiding; and he thought that inquiry, therefore, so far from doing good, would only give rise to still further excitement, at a time when, if left to itself, it would entirely disappear. Taking all the circumstances of the case into consideration, he must contend, that no ground had been made out for taking this inquiry out of the hands of a Court of Justice. It appeared to him that to do so would be giving a premium for bringing forward a succession of such charges as these. If this attack upon Mr. Deacle had taken place during times of ordinary peace and tranquillity, it would, perhaps, have been advisable to have investigated the question; but, when they remembered in what agitated and excited times these circumstances had taken place, he thought, that to institute such proceedings would be putting an undue check upon the vigilance and activity of Magistrates.
§ Mr. Daniel Whittle Harveywas surprised at the course adopted by his Majesty's Ministers upon this occasion. He wondered how they could consent to allow a case of this importance, affecting, as it did, the conduct and character of the magistracy generally, to pass without 694 notice and without inquiry. It was impressed strongly on his mind, that those who were accused of misconduct in this case had, on the first mention of it to the House, invited hon. Members to suspend their judgment until they had taken legal measures to challenge that verdict, of which the effect was, to strengthen the imputation which the inquiry at the trial raised against them. He also recollected the statement made by an hon. and learned Gentleman, who had been professionally engaged in these transactions, and who, in commenting on the trial, had asserted, that the defendants were taken by surprise, by the turn of that trial, and by the evidence produced against them. He had likewise not forgotten the declaration of the hon. member for Portsmouth, that they intended to move for a new trial as soon as the Courts were re-opened in Westminster Hall. Now, however, it turned out, that the defendants did not intend to venture upon any further judicial proceedings. He did not find fault with them for adopting that resolution. No doubt they had been ably and judiciously advised. He agreed with the hon. member for Hampshire, that considering the opulence of Mr. Bingham Baring, the verdict on the trial at Winchester was a mere nominal verdict. He supposed, therefore, that his legal adviser had told him, either that that verdict would operate in his favour as an acquittal with the public, or that he was very lucky in gaining a verdict with such small damages, and in having it tried in Hampshire, where his influence was so great, instead of having it tried in some county where he must have met the plaintiff on a footing of greater equality. He would not conceal from the House, that after all the statements which had been made by the opposite party, it was his opinion that Mr. and Mrs. Deacle, and all their witnesses, had been most shamefully calumniated in that House. An hon. and learned Gentleman, who had once filled a high legal situation, had even gone so far as to say, that he had no doubt that all the witnesses had perjured themselves. It was not enough when the defendants in a cause met with defenders of the first rank and importance in that House, and were fortified against all attacks by a family of Representatives ready to come forward at any moment in their behalf—it was not enough, it appeared, that they should have the benefit 695 of such a defence, but they must also have every assistance which could be afforded them by charging the Jury with partiality, and by accusing the witnesses of perjury. But, in his opinion, Mr. and Mrs. Deacle had little to do with the grave question which was then before the House. That was evidently the opinion of his hon. and gallant friend, for he had submitted their case to the consideration of the House long before he received any petition from them. His hon. and gallant friend, on reading the newspaper report of the trial, and the strong remarks made on it by the Press, determined to bring it before the House on his own responsibility. It was not until hon. Members had discharged the fire of their artillery upon these individuals, who were unknown in that House, and without any relations, friends, or political associates to defend them—it was not until their characters had been whispered away, and their witnesses had been traduced as guilty of perjury, and the Jury which gave them a nominal compensation had been charged with partiality—that Mr. and Mrs. Deacle felt themselves called upon to make, in their petition, a full disclosure of the injury which they alleged that they had suffered. He had read their petition through with great attention. He would not say what credit he was inclined to give to the statements which it contained; he would only say, that they appeared at least to require investigation. Still the case was not, as he said before, a mere case between Mr. Bingham Baring and Mr. and Mrs. Deacle; but it was a grave case between the magistracy and the unprotected people of England; for it had been gravely stated, that not only Mr. and Mrs. Deacle, but also 200 or 300 of the peasantry of Hampshire had been carried hand-cuffed to prison. Indeed, it had been gravely argued, that no hardship had been suffered by Mr. and Mrs. Deacle in this respect, inasmuch as it had been suffered by so many others. For his own part, and in this respect, he would say, that as Mr. Deacle was a gentleman of rank and education, the defendants had a right to take some credit to themselves for having administered the laws with impartiality, for it appeared they had hand-cuffed both the rich and the poor, the gentleman and the labourer, without the slightest distinction of rank. He was surprised to hear that it was a matter of trivial importance that the magistracy of England—hereafter 696 to be an irresponsible magistracy, if such oppression as this were to remain unnoticed—should possess the power of placing irons on the wrists of unoffending individuals, who, when brought to trial, were proved to be not guilty. He contended that by law the magistracy possessed no such power: he contended that, even where parties were guilty, it was contrary to the law and Constitution of England, both in practice and in theory, to subject them to this iron degradation, unless they presented resistance to the authorities in whose custody they were. It was against this that the people of England raised their protest—it was against this assumption of arbitrary and irresponsible power that they had in all quarters of the island given expression to their indignation. He had heard with the same indignation as his hon. friend, the member for Middlesex, that the charges brought against the Messrs. Barings in that House were the result of a dirty conspiracy. He was not conscious of the existence of any such conspiracy; but if it were supposed that by such taunts he would be deterred from raising his voice on behalf of the injured and oppressed in that House, those who used such taunts would find themselves grossly mistaken. As long as he had a seat in that House, he would always be ready to raise his voice in behalf of the poor, however much such conduct might displease those Gentlemen whose arithmetic was puzzled in counting their millions, and whose immense fortunes were accumulated at the expense, and almost by the destruction, of their poorer fellow countrymen. He would not vote for a Committee, if Government would point out any other mode of inquiry into the circumstances of this case. He had not yet heard, that the Home Secretary had offered to receive depositions upon oath from both parties on this subject. If the Home Secretary would do that, truth might yet be elicited, and justice done between both parties. If some such measure were not granted, he should be compelled to vote for a Committee of Inquiry, in spite of the inconvenience to which such Committees generally gave rise. He concluded by stating, that if such a Committee were granted, he should enter upon its duties with a mind open to conviction, and influenced by no other feeling than a wish to vindicate the justice of the country—the rights of the people, and the equal claims of the parties.
§ Mr. Baringhad had no intention of imputing any improper motives to the hon. member for Middlesex; and he was sorry that the hon. Gentleman should have imagined that he had done so. He admitted that he felt strongly on this question, and he certainly had no pretensions for saying he was able to form an impartial opinion upon it: perhaps he might be allowed to say, that he felt still more strongly on the subject, from the impression that the late prosecution which had been instituted against this young person (Mr. Bingham Baring) took its origin, not from his own demerits, but from the line of politics which he (Mr. Baring) had adopted. At the time that these transactions were taking place, there were 400 persons confined in the gaol at Winchester; and he thought that when that circumstance was taken into consideration, it would in some measure account for the confusion and excitement which had prevailed in the country. But the case had been mis-stated with respect to the Deacles. The Barings did not accuse the Deacles—it was the Deacles who accused them; and the whole extent to which the Barings went was to show that the statements of the Deacles were not founded in fact; and with this addition certainly, that there were primâ facie grounds for taking up the Deacles, and for instituting proceedings against them. He came down unprepared for the discussion, expecting that the Committee would be granted. He could only refer, therefore, to the various depositions given before the Magistrates, to show that there was good reason to apprehend Mr. and Mrs. Deacle. The Magistrates would have neglected their duty if they had not apprehended them. Several of the people who were tried, said, in their defence, that they were ordered by Mr. Deacle to go to certain places to get money. The Judges too stated, that there were farmers who instigated the people, and deserved to be tried more than the misled peasantry. The people themselves were much aggrieved, and perhaps no class deserved more pity than the agricultural labourers. They had no criminality in their minds. They were goaded on by others. The verdict was good evidence, and it acquitted all the Magistrates, except Mr. Bingham Baring, and he was only condemned because he was said to have struck a blow. The verdict of the Jury was the safest guide for the House. 698 It was not the Magistrates who accused Mr. Deacle's witnesses of perjury, but Mr. Deacle himself. He wished it to be made out, according to his petition, that the witnesses had not deposed to the truth. The hon. Member also animadverted on the contradiction between the statements of Mr. Deacle's own witnesses and his own petition. Mr. Bingham Baring, at a time of great danger, exerted himself more than any other Magistrate, and nearly lost his life by an attempt to resist a mob. That fact, which was much to his credit, had been laid hold of by a powerful writer, who circulated his slanderous attacks throughout the land, who had for many years spread poison throughout the country. This man had stated that he would ruin the Barings; and to effect that object he continually brought forward the case of that unhappy young man who lost his life for making an attempt on that of Mr. Bingham Baring. He must take the liberty to refer to the testimony of Mr. Justice Alderson in favour of Mr. Bingham Baring, to show that his conduct had been what it ought to be. The choice of the cart was the act of the constable. The Magistrates went to arrest the people who were suspected, because there were no military in the county. It was proved that Mr. Bingham Baring could know nothing of the Deacles, by his asking of the constable who they were. It was impossible that Mr. Bingham Baring could have been on the spot when the handcuffs were put on Mrs. Deacle; they were not put on either by Mr. Francis Baring. It was the general rule at that time to handcuff the prisoners who were sent to Winchester gaol; and it was in compliance with that rule that the handcuffs were used. It was physically impossible that the order to handcuff Mrs. Deacle could have been given by Mr. Bingham Baring. He admitted, with reference to the fact of who carried Mrs. Deacle, that a mistake as to the person was of no consequence. Mrs. Deacle, however, was carried carefully across the dirt, and thanked Mr. Francis Baring for his care. On the arrival of Mr. Deacle at Winchester, he too thanked Mr. Francis Baring, and said he hoped Mr. Baring would call again to-morrow. He believed, too, that there was no intention of rescuing the Deacles; but, looking at the state of insurrection in the village, it was very natural that the Magistrates should fear a 699 rescue. That was the reason for making so much haste. As to the blow, Mr, Deacle had put his hands upon the reins, and Mr. Bingham Baring, seeing that, had ridden up to the cart from behind, and did put the riding-stick he had in his hands upon Mr. Deacle. All the gentlemen who had been with Mr. Bingham Baring were made co-defenders, and were unable to give their evidence that they did not see the blow, though they were about, and would most probably have seen it if a blow had been inflicted. They never heard even of any blow, and yet, if a blow had been given, that would have been the first thing complained of. Mr. Bingham Baring knew nothing of the aggravated circumstances that were related on the trial, till they came before the Court, and he accordingly left his case entirely in the hands of the attorney, who was the Clerk of the Peace. Under the circumstances of the county, the young Magistrate who acted so vigorously deserved praise. As to not going for a new trial, the reason was, that it could not be done without giving the plaintiff an entirely new trial, and without, at the same time, obtaining the advantage of separating the defenders. The verdict, however, when translated into English, only meant that the Magistrates were acquitted of all the other charges except the blow. He had his doubts whether going for a new trial would benefit the defenders, because the gentlemen had not seen the blow, and their denial would not weigh against the assertion of other men, who said that it had been given.
Mr. O' Connellthought, that as the parties involved in the transaction had courted inquiry, the refusal to institute that inquiry would only tend to increase the slander—for slander he trusted it would prove to be. Many charges were from time to time preferred against the magistracy for an improper exercise of their functions, and if it were seen that that House was disposed to give such charges a fair degree of consideration, it would greatly tend to tranquillize the public mind. Numberless instances in his own country justified him in advancing this opinion. He was decidedly in favour of inquiry, in order, if the allegations were false, that an end might be put to popular agitation.
Sir Robert Peelwas sorry that a sense of duty obliged him to oppose a measure 700 which he believed the parties themselves sincerely desired. He was opposed to it, because he was persuaded that those parties were entirely innocent of the misconduct with which they were charged. He did not think that House the fittest tribunal for instituting a trial of the kind. If an appeal were to be made to any tribunal, it should be to one of those where the truth or falsehood of conflicting statements was established on oath. He discovered nothing in the present case, more than in many others of alleged misconduct of Magistrates, that demanded or warranted extraordinary interference. He believed those men to be innocent, and he did so without having the honour of their acquaintance further than meeting them in that House. From his own official experience, he could see much in the disturbed state of the country that might countenance the adoption of measures of more than ordinary precaution. Placing himself in the character of a Grand Juryman, and believing these persons to be altogether guiltless of the proceedings laid to their charge, he could not, consistently with a sense of duty, accede to their wishes for a new trial.
§ Mr. Huntregretted that the Government did not consent to grant the inquiry, because the printing of the petitions had been refused on the express ground that there would be an inquiry. He thought it was plain that a female had been ill-treated, without the least justice in the accusations brought against her, and that in such a case there was ground for the interference of that House. The country would not be easily led to believe that there had not been some understanding between the noble Lord at the head of the Government and the powerful family of the Barings, and this again was a reason why an inquiry should not have been refused.
Mr. Goulburnthought that the proposed appointment of a Committee would be most inconvenient, and was highly inexpedient.
Sir Francis Burdettsaid, that when he came into the House that evening, he had a strong impression on his mind to vote in support of this Motion; but what he had heard in the course of the debate which had since occurred, had completely altered his determination on the subject. He entirely concurred in what had fallen from the right hon. Baronet, the member for Tam- 701 worth. He considered that as far as the parties were concerned, this case had been entirely set at rest by the verdict of a Jury. He must say, that he could not bring himself to believe the charge made against Mr. Bingham Baring of having struck a man in handcuffs a blow. He should vote against the Motion, because he did not think that any parliamentary grounds had been laid for the appointment of a Committee.
Colonel Evanssaid, he should trouble the House with a very few words in reply. In the first place, he felt much pleased at the manner in which the hon. and learned Gentleman, the Attorney General, had treated the subject, although he was opposed to the inquiry. In the second place, he begged leave to assure the House, that as the word "conspiracy" had been made use of as affording one of the grounds upon which he would justify the appointment of a Committee, he had no such impression on his mind; the only ground he went upon was, that in a case which involved so much conflicting testimony, and on which neither party appeared well satisfied, it might be proper for the House to interfere, and make due inquiries.
§ The House divided:—Ayes 31; Noes 78; Majority 47.
| List of the AYES. | |
| Blackney, W. | Mildmay, P. St. John |
| Baring, Sir T. | O'Connell, D. |
| Baring, A. | O'Connell, M. |
| Baring, H. B. | O'Ferrall, R. M. |
| Baring, F. T. | Ruthven, E. S. |
| Ewart, W. | Sheil, R. |
| Grattan, J. | Stanley, E. G. |
| Grattan, H. | Thicknesse, R. |
| Harvey, D. W. | Tomes, J. |
| Hodges, T. L. | Wason, W. H. |
| Hunt, H. | Wood, J. |
| Jephson, C. | Walker, C. A. |
| James, W. | Wyse, T. |
| Lambert, H. | Wilks, J. |
| Lefevre, C. S. | TELLERS. |
| Macdonald, Sir J. | Hume, J. |
| Musgrave, Sir R. | Evans, Col. de Lacy. |