Bridger case debated in parliament

GAME LAWS

Mr. COLLETT called the attention of the house to a commitment which had recently taken place at Petersfield under the game laws. The hon. member read several statements relative to the transaction, but so inaudibly that it was very difficult to catch even there per port. We understood the substance of the charge to be, that a person name Sylvester was employed by a policeman named Hale, at the instigation of Sir Charles Taylor, a magistrate, to lay an information against Frederick Bridger for snaring a hare, the agreement being that the penalty (5l.) should be divided between the policeman and Sylvester. It appeared from the paper in which the report of the case appeared, the wife of Bridger purchased a hare and a pheasant in the absence of her husband, for which she was dragged before the magistrates and sentenced to hard labour and imprisonment. The summons which he held in his hand showed that the information was laid by the servant of Sir Charles Taylor. He was informed that the woman did not purchase the game for the purpose of sale, but for the use of her family, imagining that the brains of a hare would cure her child which was labouring under some disorder, and she had used them for that purpose. He had written to the editor of the Hampshire Independent, and other parties, all of whom verified the correctness of the report. But not satisfied with that, he had sent down a professional gentleman named Willis, who stated that the case was a very bad one. He held in his hand several affidavits which had been sworn before a Master in Chancery, verifying the statement which he had made to the house. And he now wished to ask the right hon. baronet whether he had made any inquiry into the case? Whether the policeman was still employed in the force? And whether Sir Charles Taylor still continued in the commission of the peace?

Sir J. GRAHAM said, the house would remember that the question put to him was, whether a policeman had endeavoured to seduce a man named Sylvester to lay a trap for a person called Bridger, to purchase game, at the instigation of Sir Charles Taylor. He had enquired of the Charles Taylor whether there was any truth in the statement, and held in his hand a letter from that of gentleman, stating that the allegation and assertion weren't true. He then thought it his duty to call on the magistrates in petty sessions, before whom the conviction took place, for an explanation of the circumstances attending the conviction, and also requested a copy of the evidence taken before them. From the statement which had been made the house would be induced to infer that Sir Charles Taylor was one of the convicting magistrates. But that was not the case. The magistrates who convicted were Captain Lyons and Mr. Marden, and Sir C. Taylor did not take any part in the proceedings (hear). The policeman positively denied that he had ever had any conversation with Sylvester for the purpose of laying a trap for a prosecution, and he denied the truth of Sylvester's statement. For his own part he was always willing to call in question the character of any person ??t willingly before the house, but who had been brought up before them by the discretion, or it might be the indiscretion (cheers and laughter), of any hon. member. He felt bound also to state — because it was a fact which could be proved—that Sylvester had been convicted at Winchester of horse-stealing, and was, therefore, to be considered as a convicted felon (hear). He had also to complain that the hon. member had departed from his former charge which related to Sylvester; but now he said that it was a woman, named Bridger, who had been seduced. That was not stated on Monday last, and consequently he had had no opportunity of inquiring into the charge which he believed rested merely on extrajudicial affidavits (here). If so, he held them to be altogether illegal. If the hon. member would give him copies of the affidavits he would take an early opportunity of investigating the case. He only hoped that there might be no flaw in those affidavits; for if legal and true, there would be an opportunity of indicting the parties (here).

Mr. COLLETT did not think the right hon. baronet had correctly stated his previous question.

Sir J. GRAHAM held the original question in his hand. The right hon. baronet read the question, which he said related to the conduct of Hales, Sir C. Taylor, and Sylvester. Now, however, the hon. gentleman referred to another case which was quite unknown to him. From his long acquaintance with Sir C. Taylor, he thought the greatest confidence in his honour and justice, and had no doubt that inquiry would show that his conduct had been as satisfactory in the one case as in the other.

Mr. COLLETT said that his first question was, whether the attention of the government had been called to the statement which had appeared in the Hampshire Independent, and which did refer to the case of Bridger.

Mr. BRIGHT said that hon. gentlemen opposite were always ready with the sympathy for any country gentleman, acting as a magistrate, if his conduct was brought under the notice of the house (oh, oh). He would have shamed them if such sympathy did not exist (here). But that it did exist no member would be bold enough to deny. He thought that the owner member was fully justified in calling the attention of the house to the subject. It appeared that the woman Bridger was alone in a room when a person came and offered to sell her a hare and a pheasant, which she bought; that an information was afterwards laid against her, and that she had been convicted. He had been informed that the information was laid by a servant of Sir C. Taylor, and that she had been convicted when Sir C. Taylor was present, and most probably on the bench.

Sir J. GRAHAM.—Not so. He was present, but not on the bench.

Mr. BRIGHT.—If it was the servant who had laid the information, that was a very suspicious circumstance. The woman had been sent to Winchester gaol for a month, because she had purchased a hare out of the season.

Mr. COLLETT.—No, it was not out of the season.

Mr. BRIGHT.—Well, from a person who is not a licensed salesman (hear). But how was she to know that? Was there a single member of that or the other house who had not not bought game which was prohibited by law to be sold? (hear). It had been given in evidence. Yet here was a poor woman who had been sent to gaol, and who but for the generosity of the hon. member for Athlone, who had remitted the money, and procured her release, would have remained in prison. No one knew better than the right hon. baronet the misconduct of the magistrates with respect to game offences, and he hoped before along some measure would be introduced to remedy the evils he complained of. One of the worst features in the trial of those offences was that they were adjudicated upon without the interference of a jury, and by interested parties.

...

The GLIO Site

Bridger case debated in parliament