§ LORD TRURO,in asking if the attention of Her Majesty's Government had been called to a case of alleged cruelty on the part of six students at The Yews, Beaconsfield, and whether they were prepared to institute additional inquiries into the circumstances attending it?—said, that it was a case which, at the first blush, appeared to be of the gravest character, the cruelty alleged such as they could scarcely conceive. An impression had got abroad, whether rightly or wrongly, that there had been been a miscarriage of justice with regard to this case. The statement which had appeared in the newspapers, and which led him on Friday last to mention 1033 the subject, warranted him in asking their Lordships to give a few moments to the consideration of the case—which was that six youths, who were students at the Rev. Mr. Chambers's, The Yews, Beaconsfield, were seen going towards the parish mead with a bag, which was supposed to contain one or two cats; and that, on arriving at the mead, one of them took a black and white cat out of the bag, and that while one of them held the legs, by another its eyes were extracted. Subsequently the poor animal, it was said, was released and two dogs set upon it. One of the youths hunted it with a whip, and it was eventually killed, and its body thrown into a holly plantation. The conduct of the students would appear to have excited the indignation of a man who was passing by, who said that if he saw anything of the kind again, he should call the attention of the police to it. The case was afterwards brought before the magistrates, and a little child between 10 and 11 years of age gave evidence to the effect that he was between 40 and 50 yards from the scene of the alleged cruelty when it occurred, and that he had seen a man passing at the time who made some observation. No report was given of the evidence of the child, neither was the cat produced, nor the evidence of the man obtained. There was, however, a statement made which he could hardly credit, to the effect that the uncle of one of the youths sat on the bench and adjudicated on the case, and he had received between 20 and 30 letters expressing indignation at what had occurred. Indeed, he believed that that statement had given rise, at least, partially, to the feeling which prevailed in the country on the subject. The evidence given was not, perhaps, altogether satisfactory. The gardener of Mr. Chambers, a man who might be supposed not to be disinclined to make out the best case on behalf of the students, was one of the first witnesses called. Then a second child, who it was also stated had witnessed the occurrence, contradicted before the magistrates the evidence which he had given previously in writing to the police. Then there was the evidence of Mr. Chambers himself, who said that his pupils remained with him until 20 minutes to 2. That, however, was perfectly consistent with the statement of one of the witnesses that the alleged act of cruelty occurred be- 1034 tween 1 and 2 o'clock. There was also some discrepancy in the evidence as to whether the animal on which the cruelty was inflicted was a cat or a rabbit; but, so far as regarded the cruelty, that would not make any difference. The statement of facts might or might not be true; but if it was true that the uncle of one of the boys was on the bench when the case was tried, the country would think, very rightly, that the etiquette or habit usually followed by magistrates of taking no part in cases personally affecting themselves had been disregarded. If this were so, a most unusual course was taken. He hoped that such conduct would be condemned in a marked manner by the head of the Legal Profession. He had thought it right in the interests of humanity and of the public to bring the matter before the notice of the House, and though he regretted occupying the time of their Lordships, even a short time upon such a matter, yet he felt that the circumstances of the case ought to be inquired into. He, however, trusted that the circumstances of the case were not such as he had been led to believe.
§ EARL BEAUCHAMPsaid, he was glad the Question had been postponed, because it had given time to make inquiry into the circumstances. Everyone would agree that the story as it was first told was, no doubt, if it occurred, one of considerable atrocity; but the one question was, whether it was true or not. and their Lordships were placed in a position of some difficulty, in being asked to proceed with the discussion of a question when they had no evidence before them and no means of obtaining information in regard to it. The noble Lord (Lord Truro) had mentioned what was to him (Earl Beauchamp) a new feature of the case — the relationship, namely, between one of the magistrates and one of the boys accused. He had no means of ascertaining the particulars of that part of the case; but this he could say, that the magistrates were presided over by a gentleman of great legal experience, who had held the office of a Judge in India. The main point was, that the magistrates who tried the case were of opinion that the charge had not been made out; and it would be remembered that the prosecution relied entirely on the evidence of the boy 10 years old. It would not be 1035 convenient to review the evidence on which the decision was given; but the House might be satisfied that it had been given by a competent bench of magistrates, and that there had been no failure of justice. Nor had the case been conducted hurriedly; the summons was granted on February 5 and heard on March 5, while handbills inviting corroborative evidence were posted in various public places for a fortnight before the trial. Altogether, the case had been managed in a competent and leisurely manner.
§ EARL GRANVILLEsaid, that he was by no means surprised the noble Lord (Lord Truro) should have taken up the matter, because the reports that had appeared were of a character to rouse the indignation of every Christian. For himself, he had no personal knowledge of the matter, and would not discuss it; but he wished to say that he had received a letter upon the subject from a gentleman whom he had not the pleasure of knowing, and it stated that the writer and the parent of one of the boys had gone into the case and were convinced that there was an utter want of foundation for the story-—at the same time, there was a desire that there should be a full and ample inquiry into the matter. There was the statement of the solicitor who attended for the boys in the papers, but all the evidence was not reported. As there was a great deal of feeling upon the subject, it was desirable that an inquiry, if the Home Office would grant one, should take place; and it was important to the boys themselves that the truth should be fully known.
§ LORD COTTESLOEsaid, that he was personally acquainted with the business of the county of Buckingham and knew all these magistrates. The case was one for summary conviction, and that circumstance made it necessary for the magistrates to feel absolutely sure of the truth before they inflicted a penalty. Those gentlemen, however, were satisfied that the evidence would not justify a conviction. He had seen the depositions of the witnesses in the case, and he thought that the noble Lord (Lord Truro) and every Member of their Lordships's House would come to the conclusion, if they saw them, that on the statement before the justices no jury would convict. One statement made by the noble Lord was, no doubt, of some im- 1036 portance—that, namely, relating to the connection between one of the magistrates and one of the accused. He was glad to be able to offer an explanation of it, as he had received a communication from that gentleman; and he said that he was not an uncle, but that he had been, through a sister, who had died, connected with the boy's family—yet, though living within a mile of the school, he had never seen the boy, and never invited him to his house, and, consequently, he felt indignant at the supposition that he had exhibited favouritism in the case. He (Lord Cottesloe) would not go into any details; but he must say that an inquiry would be satisfactory to the young gentlemen, and he thought one should take place.
§ LORD TRUROsaid, he had expressly stated that there was an impression abroad that a miscarriage of justice had taken place; but he did not presume to give an opinion upon it. It would be rather unfair to the young gentlemen if the matter were allowed to remain in its present position. They ought to be relieved in the fullest manner from the charges and reflections brought against them in connection with the charge, if they were innocent.