GENERAL DARLING. (Hansard, 10 September 1835)

§ Dr. Bowring
presented a Petition from Patrick Thompson, the soldier on whom General Darling had inflicted a severe punishment, and respecting whose case, as well as the cases of others, that House had instituted an inquiry. The petitioner stated, that having been summoned from Ireland to attend the Committee, he arrived here on yesterday week at half-past eight o'clock in the morning, but that on coming down to the House he found that the Committee had made its Report without going into his case, or examining evidence to prove the cruelty with which he had been treated. He stated, that if he had been heard by the Committee, or by the House, he should have been able 1452 to prove that the treatment he had received had been most cruel and oppressive. He entreated the House to give him an opportunity to prove his case. As a member of the Committee he must say that the abrupt and extraordinarily precipitate manner in which it closed its investigation was calculated to beget any thing but confidence in its Report. The Committee came down to the House with a Report, the conclusion of which he would venture to say was in the teeth of the understanding which several members of the Committee supposed they had come to, and which had induced some of them, he among the number, to go away. That understanding was, that the Report would be closed with a resolution which had been drawn up by the hon. Member for Cardiff, and which was to the effect, that the late period of the Session did not allow the Committee to go into the other charges. When, however, the Committee met next morning they concluded their Report with a far different resolution—namely, that no evidence had been tendered in support of the other charges. In spite of the wishes and desires of a majority of the Committee, they had sat with closed doors. The public were hermetically excluded from all knowledge of their proceedings. A single member of the Committee, exercising his undoubted privilege, a privilege fraught with much mischief, had closed their doors. The consequence was, that the public did not know what was going on in the Committee Room. The Committee resolved that no evidence was tendered in support of the other cases. Had not the closing of their doors a tendency to produce that effect? He had been informed since by several individuals that they were in the neighbourhood at the time, and were willing and anxious to give evidence as to the facts before the Committee. They were however totally ignorant of what was going on in the Committee. Now, knowing these facts, knowing that it was the intention of the Committee in the first instance to put a different conclusion to their Report—knowing that many members had gone away under that impression, he must say that the altering of the concluding resolution to one that no evidence had been tendered in the other cases was a rather extraordinary proceeding. The Committee, he had said already, sat with closed doors. Now he hoped that the period was not far distant when no tribunal appointed for the investigation of criminal charges would be suffered to shut its doors upon the public. He deeply 1453 regretted that he had not followed the example of one hon. Member of the Committee, who had stated at the outset, that unless its proceedings were public, he would have nothing to do with it.

§ Lord Dudley Stuart
did not think that any evidence could be brought forward to prove that General Darling had acted improperly in this case and that of Sudds, because, to establish such a fact, it would be necessary to show that General Darling was aware of the illness of those men at the time he ordered them to be put in irons. Now, the evidence given before the Committee went to prove, that General Darling was not aware of the illness of these men at the time. He did not think that Thompson could produce anything to rebut that evidence. He could certainly produce evidence to show what he had suffered, a the nature of the irons in which he had been put. Those irons had been before the Committee, and they did not appear to them cruelly heavy, or such as would inflict torture. As a member of the Committee, perhaps he would be allowed to say a few words with regard to that unfortunate officer Captain Robison. He thought it would be impossible to have heard that gentleman give his evidence in support of his case without feeling the deepest compassion for him. He believed that such feelings were entertained by every member of the Committee, and that they all agreed with him (Lord Dudley Stuart) in the opinion that the conduct of Captain Robison before them was exceedingly fair and candid. Under these circumstances, he trusted that his Majesty's Government would take the first opportunity to give some employment to this unfortunate officer. He believed, indeed, that the Secretary for the Colonial Department had intimated his intention to do so at the first opportunity. Captain Robison had served many years, and he was now reduced to complete ruin. With regard to what had fallen from his hon. Friend as to the resolution that no further evidence had been tendered to the Committee, he would only say that when the gentleman who had undertaken the case was called in, he stated that he had no further evidence to offer. The Committee, therefore, were justified in coming to that resolution. As to the closing of their doors, no member of the Committee was more opposed to that proceeding than he was.

Mr. Waldey
, as a member of the Committee, begged to state a fact to the House. On the last day that the Committee met, 1454 the report, acquitting General Darling of the charges investigated by the Committee, was read and agreed to. It was afterwards put by the Chairman and carried. After that, several members, and he (Mr. Wakley) amongst the rest, went away, and in their absence the last resolution was added to the Report.

§ Mr. Shaw
begged to call the hon. Member to order. He thought it very inconvenient and improper to be going into the discussion of such facts in the absence of the majority of the members of the Committtee.

§ Mr. Freshfield
, as a member of the Committee, would state that the Committee, with only three dissentient voices, had agreed to the Report acquitting General Darling. Then came the question, what was the Committee to report as to the other cases? Surely it could not be expected that they would wait for those Gentlemen who had gone away to attend to other business. It was necessary to decide that question, as the Chairman declared that he would not dissolve the Committee until the whole subject was disposed of. The Gentleman in charge of the case stated, that he had no more evidence to produce. Under these circumstances, the Committee were fully justified in coming to the resolution they had adopted. It was rather hard that at this period of the Session, an attempt should be made to create an impression that the acquittal of General Darling had not been full and complete. The hon. and learned Member for Dublin, to his honour, had stated in the Committee, that as they could not affix guilt on General Darling, they were bound to give him a full and complete acquittal. Though this petitioner might be disappointed at not being able to fix guilt on General Darling, he was sure that no one amongst the public would participate in that feeling.

§ Mr. Aglionby
said, that the question, as it appeared to him was, whether the Report of the Committee had not been informal. It appeared that the Question was put and carried, that the Report be agreed to, which Report gave General Darling the benefit of a full acquittal, as far as the investigation of the Committee had gone. It was stated, that after that several of the Members of the Committee went away, under the impression that nothing further would would be done; yet subsequently the remaining Members of the Committee came to the resolution complained of. That was, as he took it, the objection to that part of 1455 the Report of the Committee, and it appeared to him a fair one. With regard to Captain Robison, he knew nothing of him out of that House, but he was bound to say of him, that his evidence before the Committee was characterized by fairness, candour and honesty.