§ MR. BRADYsaid, he rose to move as a Resolution, That the strong claims of Mr. Barber upon the favourable consideration of the Crown, referred to in the report of the Select Committee on the petition of William Henry Barber, made upon the 7th day of July, 1858, have not been satisfied; and that the circumstances set forth in his petition to this House, presented upon the 2nd day of May instant, in reference to such claims, are entitled to the consideration of Her Majesty's Government. The case of Mr. Barber had been brought before the House by Lord Ebrington when Member for Marylebone. The noble Lord then went into its minutest details, and made the House fully acquainted with all the facts connected with it. In his petition Mr. Barber alleged that he had been convicted of forgery and transported to Norfolk Island, where he remained for two years and a half; that the only evidence by which he could have proved his innocence had been kept back; and that he had in addition to his sufferings sustained a considerable personal loss. In 1858 he (Mr. Brady) moved for a Committee of Inquiry, which was granted him, and which sat for four days. That Committee, which was presided over by the noble Lord the Member for the East Riding, and numbered amongst its members gentlemen connected with the Treasury, took all the evidence that could be laid before them. They unanimously decided that every allegation contained in Mr. 945 Barber's petition was proved, and that he had suffered cruelties and persecutions which could not be expressed. In consequence of their Report a sum of £5,000 was granted to that gentleman. That amount was totally insufficient to compensate him for the losses and sufferings which he had undergone. His personal expenses, in consequence of the treatment to which he had been subjected, amounted to £4,895: and in satisfying the courts of law of his innocence, and in regaining his position, which it took six years to accomplish, he was obliged to spend £3,700 additional. When the Vote of £5,000 passed the House, he (Mr. Brady) had felt unwilling to raise the question, as it was agreed to at a late hour on Wednesday afternoon. On the 2nd of May last the petition was presented to which his notice of Motion referred. That petition stated that, previous to his conviction, Mr. Barber was in receipt of a professional income of upwards of £1,000 a year. All lie (Mr. Brady) now asked was the comparatively trifling sum of £3,700, which was the amount that had been expended in Mr. Barber's happily successful endeavours to reinstate himself in his profession.
§ SIR FITZROY KELLYseconded the Motion.
§ SIR GEORGE GREYsaid, he could hardly think the House would be disposed to agree in the Motion made by the hon. Gentleman opposite. In these cases of pecuniary claims brought forward by hon. Members on behalf of those in whom they were in any way interested there ought to be something like a statutory limitation, as the practice was becoming rather common of repeating claims after they had been rejected over and over again. The present was even a stronger case, for it had been favourably considered, and a sum of money actually voted in full satisfaction by the House. On what grounds, then, could the hon. Gentleman ask the House to agree in his Motion? The case of Mr. Barber was peculiar in this respect, among others, that it was the only one in which, a failure of justice having taken place, and it being afterwards believed that the person was improperly convicted of crime, pecuniary compensation had been granted by the House in consequence of the losses which had been sustained. There were, no doubt, peculiar circumstances, connected with the treatment of Mr. Barber, taking this case out of the common class, and exempting it from the ordinary 946 rule, and the Government of the Earl of Derby having fairly, and, he might say favourably, considered the Report of the Select Committee, to the appointment of which they themselves had consented, recommended that the sum which the hon. Member for Leitrim regarded as paltry, but which many Members of that House, regarded as a generous and liberal compensation, should be included in the Estimates. A change of Government having taken place before the Vote was passed, it was retained by the next Government in deference to the opinion of their predecessors; and it was agreed to without any remonstrance on the part of the hon. Member for Leitrim.
§ MR. BRADYsaid, he was about to propose an Amendment, but the Chairman of the Committee told him that it could not be put. The Members were then dividing, and it was so near six o'clock that it was not thought possible to proceed any further after the division.
§ SIR GEORGE GREYsaid, he was glad to be reminded of the circumstances, for he now remembered that the decision was come to after discussion, and after a division had actually taken place. If an intimation had been made that the former grant was not to be considered a final settlement, he thought there would have been great objection to voting the £5,000. He did not now wish to imply any doubt of Mr. Barber's innocence, but at the time he had to deal with his case, after having the assistance of the present Lord Chancellor, he could not conceal from himself that there were great difficulties in it, and that there were circumstances of great suspicion in the conduct of Mr. Barber. Those circumstances were afterwards cleared up; but it was in consequence of their existence that the Court of Queen's Bench took so long a time to consider the case. He, therefore, thought it was unreasonable to ask the House for the amount of the expenses to which Mr. Barber had been put in reinstating himself in his profession when a sum of £5,000 had already been given to him. If the House granted this further sum of £3,700, Mr. Barber would have received nearly £9,000; but there would be nothing to prevent some hon. Member coming forward at a future time with a statement that that was a paltry sum, and a demand for a further payment, to cover some other expenses. He must say that he thought the House had acted in a 947 liberal spirit, and voted a sum which ought to cover every reasonable demand which Mr. Barber could have against the public.
§ SIR FITZROY KELLYsaid, he could quite understand that if this were the first occasion on which this question was brought before the House, the observations of the right hon. Baronet would be, as indeed they always were, of great weight. It might be said that a claim was being made on the House and upon the resources of the country which he (Sir FitzRoy Kelly) was bound to admit was altogether unprecedented. But the features of the case were so extraordinary, the claim of Mr. Barber was so strong, and the arguments adduced in its support were so irresistible, that for the first time in the history of the country the House of Commons felt bound to establish a precedent, and to come to the relief of Mr. Barber. The same question was now raised, and it was one of the deepest moment to Mr. Barber. He himself had argued the case before the Court of Queen's Bench; and after failure of two very eminent counsel he felt disinclined to attempt it. Upon Mr. Barber's earnest request he consented to dedicate an Easter vacation to a full and complete investigation of the matter. He and the other counsel employed had, of course, acted perfectly gratuitously for Mr. Barber. When the case was again brought forward, Mr. Justice Erie, who had been counsel for the prosecution against Mr. Barber, and all the other Judges on the bench, were unanimous in thinking that Mr. Barber had been unjustly accused, that he was the victim of an accidental but great injustice, and they restored him to the rank of an attorney. It was only just to add that he had actually lost in hard money a sum of money bordering on £5,000 in defending himself upon the erroneous conviction. That sum the liberality of the House granted to him. But in attempting to replace himself in his former position he had expended some £3,000 more. He had at last succeeded in asserting his innocence, and in being restored to his rank as attorney; and would have been in a state of utter destitution, and penniless, were it not for his profession. The debt of £3,700 was now pressing upon him, and he must pay it out of his hard earnings, unless the House would consent to do him that tardy act of justice. The sum asked for was a miserable one—a mere trifle, and if the 948 principle laid down by the Vote of £5,000 was to be observed, the present application ought to be acceded to.
§ THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, that both the hon. Members who and spoken last had regarded the question as being of exceedingly contemptible importance as far as the public were concerned, but of importance to Mr. Barber. He fully admitted that a subject of this kind ought to be regarded without reference to the amount of the sum asked. That was not the question on which the decision of the House should be taken; but he could not agree with the hon. Members who had advocated the claim that the sum was so inconsiderable a one as they seemed to think it. Mr. Barber had already received £5,000, and the House was now told that that was a paltry pittance; but the amount now asked, with the £5,000 already granted, did not represent the claims of Mr. Barber, for the speeches made in his behalf told them so. If the £3,700 were now granted, the hon. Member for Leitrim might come forward again next year. [Dr. BRADY: NO.] Well, when the £5,000 was given the hon. Gentleman did not reserve any right to come forward and make a new demand. Had he done so—had he allowed the House to see a glimpse of his intention—it was possible that that circumstance might have had a material, and, probably, an adverse influence on the Vote. He must express his regret that his hon. and learned Friend opposite (Sir Fitz Roy Kelly), who was Attorney General to the Government who recommended the Vote of £5,000, should now, in his independent capacity, be leading an assault on the Treasury for an addition to that sum. The argument of his hon. and learned Friend went to this—that whenever a person who was not guilty of the crime with which he was charged was found guilty in a court of justice, he was entitled to bring against the public a claim for pecuniary compensation. He challenged his hon. and learned Friend to make good that proposition.
§ THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERIf the Government prosecuted, they did so in the public interest, and no distinction or no additional argument could be drawn from that. The matter did not turn on the question whether the Government was the prosecutor, but on the question whether, when one of the tribunals 949 which were bound to convict the guilty unfortunately convicted the innocent, the public were bound to make pecuniary compensation? Neither the Committee nor the Government had ever adopted a principle so extravagant as that claims of a pecuniary nature were to be advanced by individuals because they had the misfortune to be convicted in a court of justice when they were not guilty. The case of Mr. Barber presented peculiarities of a different character, and the manner in which the sentence was applied, and the sufferings Mr. Barber underwent in consequence, constituted the peculiarities of his case. But the statement of the hon. and learned Gentleman proceeded on the principle that all persons who had suffered detriment in consequence of an erroneous conviction in a court of justice were entitled to bring a claim for compensation against the public Exchequer. That was a question of enormous importance, and it would be a portentous innovation if any such principle were to be laid down. Fifty other cases might be brought forward with as plausible arguments in their favour, if it were to be established that it was because of the erroneous conviction, and not simply from the suffering he had undergone, that Mr. Barber had received compensation. He felt bound to say that questions of the kind could not be entered upon without starting a great many separate inquiries. Apart from the question of guilty or not guilty, one might be raised with regard to the prudence of the conduct of the gentleman in question. All such matters, and they all more or less affected character, would have to be ripped up and examined if the extraordinary principle was to be established, that the House of Commons ought to compensate every man erroneously convicted for the pecuniary loss lie had suffered in consequence. He trusted the House would refuse to entertain the Motion.
§ MR. LONGFIELDsaid, that in consequence of a gentleman, who had already received £5,000 of public money, making another demand for £4,000, he had felt it his duty to examine carefully the evidence relating to the case. It was painful, when a gentleman—a martyr in this case—would stir up things which had better be allowed to remain quiet. Mr. Barber, in the course of his professional duty as an attorney, was the innocent instrument by which no less than four forged documents were imposed on the Bank of England, and upon one of these documents he 950 was tried and convicted. He had read the Report of the Select Committee in reference to the case, and if the Committee were satisfied with the evidence of Mr. Barber and three or four other gentlemen, the Committee were certainly most humane, but he could not compliment them oil being discriminating, for any bench of country magistrates would have come to the verdict which a jury was said once to have brought in—"Not guilty, but we recommend him not to do it again." Mr. Barber, if he had not suffered indignities and annoyances from the Governor of Norfolk Island, would not probably have obtained the sympathy he received, together with £5,000 of public money. Parliament thought they had a measure of kindness to deal out to one who had suffered malicious and malignant indignities beyond the intention of the law, and for that reason, and not upon the principle that any persons wrongly convicted were entitled to compensation, voted a sum of money to him. Mr. Barber had had an ample measure of justice from the Government, and it was to be regretted that he had not been content with what he had got, and with his restoration to his profession and position.
§ MR. MAGUIREsaid, he should be sorry if the House were to pronounce its decision influenced by the speech just delivered, which, from its want of generosity, contrasted strongly with the speech of the hon. and learned Member for East Suffolk. One might suppose that the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Longfield) was arguing like a counsel for the prosecution with all the rancorous enmity—
§ MR. LONGFIELDrose to order. He submitted that the expressions which had just fallen from the hon. Member were not regular.
§ MR. MAGUIREsaid, he would say "professional prejudice."
§ MR. LONGFIELDsaid, he must really protest against such language being allowed.
§ MR. MAGUIREsaid, he meant only to say that the hon. and learned Gentleman showed that kind of feeling which might be supposed to be entertained by a counsel who had been unsuccessful in his advocacy. The Chancellor of the Exchequer and the hon. Baronet on the Treasury bench had acknowledged Mr. Barber's innocence; he had been pronounced innocent by a court of law, by the late Government, and by the House of Commons, and, therefore, in 951 God's name, let no one rise in the House to damage the character of that unfortunate gentleman. When a man was alleged to have committed a crime he was prosecuted by the public, and if that prosecution did him injury, he being innocent, he had a right to appeal to the nation, and through no other tribunal could he so properly appeal as through the high court of Parliament. He should offer no observation upon the merits of the case, but he merely asked the House to take the decision already given in regard to Mr. Barber's innocence, and not to decide upon the remarks of the hon. and learned Gentleman.
§ MR. BRADY,in reply, denied that Mr. Barber had the proper appliances at his command for his defence; his books were taken away, and the Crown actually kept away his partner on the pretence of bringing him forward as a witness, and not calling him.
MR. SERJEANT PIGOTTsaid, the question was one of principle—whether all persons who had been convicted in courts of justice "without probable cause" had a right to come to that House for compensation. Such a doctrine could not be admitted. The case now presented was an appeal ad misericordiam, and if the House were to go into all the cases of individual hardship which might be brought before it from the criminal law courts no Session would be long enough, and no Chancellor of the Exchequer would be able to promise a surplus.
§ MR. MALINSsaid, he felt that there was great force in what had been said on both sides. It was a hardship that a man who had been erroneously found guilty of a crime and had suffered the penalties of the law should not be entitled to compensation for the expense he was put to in recovering his status in society; but at the same time there was great force in the observation of the Chancellor of the Exchequer that these were perils to which every one was exposed. He supported Mr. Barber's claim when it was last under discussion, but when the £5,000 was granted he considered the question settled, and he was surprised to find that three years after that grant a further claim was made; but while upon that ground he could not support the Motion, he thought Mr. Barber fully entitled, after the investigation the case had received to be considered as a perfectly innocent man, and he was sorry that his hon. and learned 952 Friend (Mr. Longfield) had thought proper again to raise doubts upon that of which the country no longer entertained any doubt.
§ MR. BRADYsaid, that as he saw that the feeling of the House was against him, he would beg leave to withdraw his Motion.
§
Motion made, and Question,
That the strong claims of Mr. Barber upon the favourable consideration of the Crown, referred to in the Report of the Select Committee on the Petition of William Henry Barber, made upon the 7th day of July, 1858, have not been satisfied; and that the circumstances set forth in his Petition to this House, presented upon the 2nd day of May, instant, in reference to such claims, are entitled to the consideration of Her Majesty's Government.
§ Put, and negatived.