Silvester's Case debated in Parliament

SILVESTER’S CASE.

Mr. COLLETT begged to repeat his question regarding a statement which had appeared in the Hampshire Independent of May 9, in which a policeman was represented to have offered a bribe to a man named Silvester, to lay a false information under the game laws against a fisherman, named Bridger. [The honourable gentleman proceeded to read the statement at length, as it appeared in the Evening Chronicle report of the 13th instant, and went on to say]—The Hampshire Independent added, that this disgusting case had excited considerable sensation in the district. His (Mr. Collett) complaint was against a magistrate, a minister of the law, and against a policeman for offering blood-money. The first attempt having failed, a more pliable agent was found, and that agent went to the house of a poor fisherman named Frederick Bridger, and in the absence of the man sold the game to the wife. For this offence she was dragged before the bench, and sentenced by Sir Charles Taylor to hard labour and imprisonment. The charge was that she had bought game of a person not authorised to sell it, but how was the poor woman know whether the person who offered the game was or was not licensed? The woman bought it not to sell again, but for consumption in her family; her child was ill, and it was a common opinion in that part of the country that the brains of a hare would cure the disorder, and certain it was that the child got better. He would now tell the house what he had done since he last mentioned the matter in his place. He first wrote to the editor of the Hampshire Independent, and had been told by him that the information was obtained from a highly respectable and credible source. He (Mr. Collett) had been subsequently assured, in another letter from the editor, that the statement in the paper was strictly true; but being resolved to investigate the matter thoroughly, he had sent down a professional man of the name of Willis to make inquiries. That gentleman had written to him to say that he had seen and questioned the policeman Hale, who had equivocated, and the woman Bridger, whose artless narrative carried with it all the air of veracity. Still he (Mr. Collett), not being satisfied, had sought for and obtained further information, and a number of affidavits, regularly sworn, had been furnished to him, all which tended to show that the poor woman had been ignorantly trapped into the offence, and that when the question was put to Sir C. Taylor he had not been able to deny the imputation. The hon. member proceeded to read several of these affidavits from George Hetherington, high constable of Petersfield, and from persons of the names of Thomas Sylvester (to whom Hale had made the proposal in the first instance), and George Langridge, who, as we collected, confirmed Sylvester in some particulars. The honourable member read these documents so indistinctly that we cannot pretend to give even the substance of them; and concluded by asking whether Hale was still in the police force, and Sir C. Taylor in the commission of the peace for Hampshire?

Sir J. GRAHAM reminded the house that when the question was formerly put to him, it related to an endeavour on the part of Hale, the policeman, to seduce Sylvester to lay a trap by inducing some person to purchase game. He (Sir James Graham) had therefore asked Sir Charles Taylor if there was any truth in the story, and by him he had been assured that it was utterly destitute of foundation [cheers]. He had then called upon the magistrates who held the petty session at which the conviction took place to make their statement, and to accompany it by the evidence taken before them in the case. It would have been inferred from what was said on the former day, as well as this evening, that Sir C. Taylor was one of the convicting magistrates. The fact was not so [hear, hear]; the convicting magistrates were Captain Lyon and Mr. Marden. Sir C. Taylor did not adjudicate, although he was present. Hale, the policeman, also positively denied the truth of the assertion that he had had any conversation with Sylvester about laving a trap for anybody. He (Sir J. Graham) was always reluctant to question the character of a person not willingly brought before the house by the discretion, or perhaps in some cases indiscretion of honourable members [cheers]; but he was bound to state as a fact capable of proof that Sylvester was a convicted felon, having been found guilty of horse-stealing [cheers]. Yet he was the person upon whose statement reliance was to be placed [hear, hear], and upon whose evidence an attack had been made upon the characters of Sir C. Taylor and Hale the policeman. Such was the case he (Sir James Graham) had prepared himself to answer; but it now appeared that the honourable member had changed his ground, and shifted his issue to the case of Mrs. Bridger, who, it was alleged, had been entrapped into the purchase of a hare and a pheasant. Into this matter he (Sir James Graham) had yet had no opportunity of inquiring; but it seemed to rest upon what the honourable member called affidavits, probably extrajudicial, and not of a legal character. The character of a magistrate had been assailed, and inquiries had been made to rebut the attack; and when it was supposed that that would be the question, another case, relating to different parties, appeared to have been got up. That case he had yet had no opportunity of investigating, but he hoped the honourable member would permit him to have copies of his affidavits, in order that if no plan were found as to their regularity, and it turned out that the statements in them were false, the parties might be prosecuted and punished for perjury [cheers].

Mr. COLLETT contended that his question of a former day related this case, and called for answer to it.

Sir J. GRAHAM referred the honourable member to the votes, and to what had passed on the occasion. The question of the honourable member related to an account in a provincial paper which he had read to the house, and which mentioned only that Hale, the policeman, had made a corrupt offer to Sylvester. The reading of this account the honourable member had followed up by his questions, the same as those put to-night, whether Hale was still in the force, and Sir C. Taylor still in the commission of the peace? To those points he (Sir J. Graham) had addressed himself, and had furnished himself with an answer, considering the subject narrowed to the statements as regarded Hale and Sir C. Taylor. If there were any other instance of an attempt to trap an innocent person into the commission of an offence, it was new to him (Sir James Graham); but from long acquaintance with Sir C. Taylor he had such confidence in his honour, that he was certain, as related to him, it had no foundation [cheers]. He had felt so as regarded Hale and Sylvester, and the same strong persuasion existed in his mind as regarded any other accusation of a similar kind subsequently made. He repeated that he should be happy to be furnished with the honourable member’s affidavits, in older that if they were not sustained by facts the parties might be prosecuted, and the charge he refuted in the most satisfactory manner [cheers].

Mr. COLLETT repeated that Sylvester having declined the job, Hale procured somebody else to tempt Mrs. Bridger to purchase the game. It seemed to him part of the same transaction. His first question on the former evening had been whether the attention of government had been called to the subject?

Mr BRIGHT observed upon the sympathy—the very natural sympathy displayed by most honourable members whenever a charge was made against a magistrate [hear, hear]. He repeated that such was the fact, and he believed that no member would venture to deny it. Whether Sylvester's story were true or not, the honourable member for Athlone (Mr. Collett) had done good service by calling attention to it, because the statement had appeared uncontradicted in a widely circulated paper. Sir C. Taylor had taken no steps to contradict the report; and it purported to be a correct account of what had passed in the justice-room. There was no doubt that Mrs. Bridger had been trapped into the purchase of the game, and no doubt that she had been convicted when Sir C. Taylor was present, though perhaps not on the bench——

Sir J. GRAHAM : The conviction was signed by Captain Lyon and Mr. Marden.

Mr. BRIGHT insisted that Sir C. Taylor was present at the time, and the whole circumstances seemed suspicious. The poor woman was sent to Winchester gaol for a month for buying game of an unlicensed person; but how was she to ascertain whether the person had or had not authority to sell game? There was hardly a member of Parliament who, a few years ago, did not buy as much game as he wanted of salesmen who were not allowed to have it in their possession [cheers]. That fact was in evidence before committees of both houses. The poor innocent woman was sent to gaol for a month, and there she would now have been but for the kindness of the honourable member for Athlone, who had sent down the fine and obtained her release. It had been said that Sylvester was not a respectable man: perhaps so, but many who sold game were probably not more respectable. Although it might turn out that the case was not true in all its parts, the honourable member for Athlone deserved credit for having brought it forward. Nobody knew better than the right honourable Secretary for the Home Department the gross misconduct of magistrates in cases connected with the game laws, and he (Mr. Bright) hoped that out of repeated instances of the kind would grow some measure to correct the abuse. Cases under the game laws were adjudicated upon without the Intervention of a jury, by men who were interested in the preservation of game, or who were passionately fond of the sport. It was impossible, therefore, that injustice should not be done, and he believed in his conscience that gross injustice was done every day.

Mr. LEADER complained that the charge was of a most serious kind, imputing to a respectable and aged magistrate conduct little short of infamous.

Sir J. GRAHAM said across the table that he was more than seventy years old.

Mr. LEADER continued, that members of Parliament were used to attacks in the newspapers, and knew how to bear them, but this, an attack upon an ancient gentleman, accusing him of what was dishonourable and disgraceful, was really too bad [hear]. He (Mr. Leader) knew Sir C. Taylor and the district in which he resided, and could say that the whole income he derived from his estate was spent in finding labour for the poor and in charity [cheers]. He was convinced that Sir C. Taylor was utterly incapable of what was imputed to him [cheers].

Mr. P. SCROPE also bore testimony to the excellent qualities of Sir C. Taylor. If some members sympathised too much with magistrates, others sympathised too much with gamekeepers [cheers]. Great injustice on this occasion had been done to a venerable gentleman, and the case ought not to have been taken up as it had been by the hon. member for Athlone. Sir C. Taylor had been 34 years a member of this house, and 50 years in the commission of the peace [cheers].

The GLIO Site

Silvester's Case debated in Parliament