GENERAL DARLING. (Hansard, 20 August 1835)

§ Sir Henry Hardinge
regretted that the inquiry was not conducted with the harmony which was desirable. For his own part, he desired to appeal to the House and to the Chair to know whether the Committee was or was not a Committee of Inquiry, and whether it was not acting improperly in assuming much higher powers? If the powers attempted to be assumed by the Committee were granted, the liberty of the subject would be seriously endangered; and thinking that the proceedings of the Committee were most tyrannous, he objected to continuing his attendance, unless he received an assurance from the House, that the Select Committee appointed to inquire into the conduct of General Darling was not a Committee vested with judicial powers. In that Committee charges had been brought against General Darling, which were charges of murder or of manslaughter; the Court before which those charges were to be tried had been appointed by the hon. Member who conducted the prosecution; and the witnesses who were examined were not sworn. Under these circumstances he thought that justice could not be done. He must regard the Committee as the most democratical species of Star Chamber ever established, unless its functions were confined to the mere business of inquiry. When he first attended the Committee, he heard an hon. and learned Member, who possessed great weight in that House—he meant the hon. and learned Member for Dublin—state, when an hon. Friend of his (Sir Henry Hardinge's) moved that the Committee-room be cleared of strangers, that the Committee ought to be an open Committee, because it partook of the character of a criminal court, and had judicial 796 functions to discharge. He had also heard the hon. Member for Tralee speak about employing counsel to conduct the prosecution. Now, if these hon. Members were right in the view they took of the character of the Committee, then, in his opinion, a precedent of a most dangerous and tyrannical nature would have been established, and he declared that nothing should induce him to sit on that Committee, and thereby be a party to the establishment of so improper a precedent. It would be in the recollection of the House that the appointment of the Committee was opposed by the Government, but that they were overpowered by the hon. and learned Member for Dublin and the question carried against them. He had in the Committee proposed a resolution declaring that it was merely a Committee of Inquiry, but he was met by the previous question. He had intended to follow up that resolution by another directing that strangers should be excluded, but he was told that the Committee was a Judicial Court, and ought therefore to be open to the public. He had also to complain of the manner in which the Committee had conducted these proceedings. General Darling was informed, that the first charge that would be gone into would be the grants of land made by him; and General Darling prepared himself accordingly. On the day of the meeting of the Committee, however, the hon. Member who conducted the prosecution changed his line of proceedings, and entered on the case of the soldiers Sudds and Thompson, which, in fact, amounted to a charge of murder, and allowed General Darling only twenty-four hours to prepare his defence. A proposition was made to give General Darling a period of ten days for that purpose, but it was negatived by the Committee. He considered that General Darling was harshly treated, for he had been five times tried, and five times acquitted. The right hon. Gentleman was about to detail the circumstances relative to the different inquiries which General Darling's case had undergone, when he was interrupted by

§ Mr. Aglionby
, who thought that those matters had no connexion with the conduct of the present Committee.

§ Sir Henry Hardinge
said, he only alluded to the subject in order to show what was the scope which the investigation was taking. The accusation against General Darling, in the cases of Sudds and Thomp- 797 son, was that of murder or manslaughter, and into that accusation a Committee of the House of Commons was entering. Now, he wished to know from the Chair if the Committee of Inquiry did not exceed its powers in so doing? If the answer was in the affirmative, he trusted the Committee would retrace its steps, and confine itself within its due limits, if, on the contrary, the House should decide that it was competent for a Select Committee to investigate a charge of a criminal nature—if it was competent for such a Committee to convert itself into a Star-chamber, and in that capacity to assail even the liberty of the subject—he, for one, would have nothing further to do with it. Nothing was more monstrous than the course in which the Committee was then proceeding. Would it be believed that the prosecutor had gone so far as to produce irons, alleged to have been used in the case of Sudds and Thompson; which irons, it was subsequently discovered, had been fabricated in London. The hon. and Gallant Member concluded by requesting to know from the Chair whether there was any precedent for such a proceeding as that he had described, and particularly whether a Select Committee of the House of Commons could convert itself into a criminal tribunal for investigating a charge of murder! Certainly, in his view, nothing more iniquitous, more tyrannical, or more unjust than the conduct of several of the Members of the Committee, could be conceived.

§ Mr. Warburton
thought that the right hon. and gallant Member ought in fairness, before charging the Committee with improper conduct, to have called for the production of the Minutes of their proceedings. The right hon. Gentleman said, he was induced to call the attention of the House to the subject, because he heard a certain observation made by the hon. Member for Dublin. Now, he did not think that the Committee, or that House, ought to be bound by every inconsiderate expression that might fall from any Member. He believed that the conduct of the Committee was guided solely by a desire to do what they considered their duty. He admitted that he had moved the previous question on the right hon. Gentleman's Motion, declaring the Committee to be simply a Committee of inquiry, because he thought that the Committee needed not to be told what their 798 duties were, and because he saw no advantage in affirming a mere abstract proposition. He had also opposed the Motion for the exclusion of strangers from the Committee-room, because any Member by noticing their presence had the power to cause the room to be cleared. The right hon. Gentleman had said that the Committee had assumed extraordinary powers, but he should like to know in what respect the rules of the House regulating the proceedings of Committees had been violated? The right hon. Gentleman, while he denied that the Committee ought to be considered a judicial tribunal, had, nevertheless, not scrupled to apply the term "prosecutor" to the hon. Member for Tralee.

§ Sir Henry Hardinge
said, he had made use of that term for the sake of brevity, and with no offensive intention.

§ Mr. Warburton
continued: He said that it was true, as the right hon. Gentleman had stated, that certain charges against General Darling had been drawn up, but that had been done entirely at the desire of such Members of the Committee as usually voted with the right hon. Gentleman opposite. With respect to the statement that the hon. Member for Tralee intended to employ a solicitor to assist him, he begged to inform the House that that intention was only formed after an expectation had been raised that General Darling would employ counsel.

§ Sir Henry Verney
trusted that it would not go forth to the public that General Darling had any desire that the inquiry into his conduct should not be completely public. For his own part, however, he hoped that the evidence received by that Committee would not be printed; because, as General Darling had not had time to prepare his defence, it would most unjustly affect his character.

§ Mr. Maurice O'Connell
understood that during his absence from the House, the right hon. Gentleman opposite had designated him as the Member conducting the prosecution against General Darling. He had, on a former occasion, disclaimed all intention of assuming such a character, and he therefore trusted that the right hon. Gentleman would withdraw the expression.

§ Sir Henry Hardinge
said, that he had designated the hon. Member as the person conducting the prosecution, because it was on his Motion that the Committee 799 was appointed, and it was by him that the different witnesses were summoned. He meant to say nothing offensive, and if the hon. Member would supply him with another expression, descriptive of the leading part he took in the Committee, he (Sir Henry Hardinge) would readily adopt it.

§ Mr. M. O'Connell
thought that he might, with greater propriety, be designated as the Member conducting the inquiry. He understood that the right hon. Gentleman had also alluded to a set of irons, which, at his suggestion, had been manufactured. Did the right hon. Gentleman mean to say, that in procuring those irons he had been actuated by an improper motive?

§ Sir Henry Hardinge
could not undertake to say what the hon. Member's motives were. He was bound to believe that the hon. Member had no motive but that of justice, although he certainly regretted that the irons had been introduced.

§ Mr. Aglionby
remonstrated against the vagueness of the charges brought by the right hon. Baronet against the Committee, and called upon him for a particular accusation.

§ The Speaker
said, that having been appealed to by the right hon. Baronet for his opinion, he was bound to say (as we understood the right hon. Gentleman), that the zeal of the Committee, and their anxiety efficiently to discharge the important duties intrusted to them, might, perhaps, have carried them somewhat out of the sphere of their duties. He hoped, therefore, that they would now proceed on the distinct understanding, that it was a Committee of Inquiry merely. The House itself had no judicial power such as that which had been adverted to, and therefore, could not delegate such a power. With respect to the exclusion of strangers, there could be no doubt that a Committee had as much right to order that exclusion as the House itself.

§ Mr. Aglionby
still thought it necessary to call on the right hon. Gentleman opposite, who had designated the Committee as a democratic star chamber, and charged it with tyrannous conduct, to state one fact which could justify such a charge. He, as a Member of that Committee, would be ready to defend it.

§ Sir Henry Hardinge
repeated what he had already said, that when he made a Motion with a view of ascertaining what 800 the powers of the Committee were, the Committee refused to entertain it. He also stated, that the hon. and learned Member for Dublin described the Committee as a judicial body, and that the hon. Member for Tralee had expressed an intention of employing a solicitor to conduct the inquiry. Under these circumstances, he thought it right to state to the House, that he would be no party to such a tyrannical act as that of allowing a Committee of the House of Commons to usurp the functions of a Court of Justice.

§ Mr. Aglionby
appealed to the House, whether the circumstances stated by the right hon. Gentleman warranted the use of such language as the right hon. Gentleman had applied to the Committee? It surely did not become those who desired to exclude strangers, and make the proceedings of the Committee perfectly secret, to accuse the Committee of being a Star-chamber. He hoped the time would come when the vote of Members of every Committee would be made public. He knew that he had never given a vote which he desired to conceal. He was willing to allow General Darling every facility to prepare his defence, and though the right hon. Gentleman might cease to attend the Committee, he (Mr. Aglionby) would continue to discharge his duty, and would ask the witnesses every question the answers to which were likely to be advantageous to General Darling. The hon. Member concluded by stating that the irons had been manufactured solely for the purpose of being exhibited as a model of the set placed on the soldiers Sudds and Thompson by General Darling's order.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer
thought that the whole proceedings had been irregular from first to last. As long as it was a matter of explanation between the Members of the Committee he did not like to interfere, but now he felt bound to protest against the greater portion of the discussion. He thought if there was one matter more than another, they ought to be cautious of interfering with, it was with the proceedings of a Committee of Inquiry then sitting—nothing could be more disorderly than to do so while the Committee was sitting. He was in hopes that after the question had been put to the Chair, the discussion would have terminated; since then nine-tenths of it 801 had been irregular. He thought that no charges could be fairly brought against the Members of the Committee, or against the hon. and learned Member for Tralee. There was nothing to justify the interference of the House.

§ Mr. Tooke
, as Chairman of the Committee, vindicated the integrity of its proceedings, and protested against its being stigmatized on account of expressions used by individual Members, and not adopted in subsequent Resolutions of the Committee. He denied that the Committee deserved the character of a democratic Star-chamber; it had acted within the strict line of duty.

§ Mr. Twiss
said, that if the Committee were considered as a judicial tribunal, the presence of strangers was admissible; but if, as was asserted, it did not partake of that character, strangers were properly excluded. The object of excluding strangers was not to shelter the votes or proceedings of any Members of the Committee, but to prevent the case from being unjustly prejudiced. He complained that the Committee did not distinctly define its own character when called on to do so, but left the matters in doubt as to whether it was a judicial tribunal or not. He thought the proceedings of the Committee in this and other respects injurious to the privileges of the House and the best interests of the subject.