ORIGINAL CORRESPONDENCE.

Wellington Independent, Issue 1318, 2 October 1858, Page 3

ORIGINAL CORRESPONDENCE.

/Po lite Editor of,the Wellington Independent.) Sui —

It.is with great regret that I take np my pen to address you on'the subject of tho .■lute painful .proceedings in the Ik.siduli. Magistrate's Court against the Ilev. Mr Baker. Iv (.''iiimoii with many-other churchmen, I had •hoped thai this unfortunate person would, as speedily as possible, have left the Province •where so deep and iuulf iceal.le v. brand had been fixed upon him. But since be appears resolved at least to attempt to brazen the matter out; since letters from him casting the grossest aspersions on those who, in the unswerving discharge of their duty, passed upon him a •verdict of guilty, appear week after week in the public papers; and since the press on either side refrains irom comment, it appears to me to have bec.nne a duty for some one who, like myself, was an attentive observer of the whole _f'the proceedings, to lay a brief nummary of his observations before the public.

Tlte conviction will probably lie quashed by Mr. Justice Gresaou, on twd grounds ; (irst. that in awaidiug costs in addition to the imposition of a line ot'live pounds, the magistrates ■exceeded their, jurisdiction ; and secondly, that Mr. Pl.ar-i_y._i, one of the justices before' whom the cuse was beard, held certain conversations will, one of the witnesses, Mis. Langley. On the facts of the case, on the guilt or innocence ■of the accused, Mr. Gresson has very properly .expressed no opinion whatsoever, and the fact wifl remain that a bench of 16 magistrates deduced Arthur Baker guilty of the assault, charged ■hy a majority, as is generally believed of 10 tod. Wilh regard, to Mr. Pliarazyn, I must observe that lillle reliance cm he placed on the affidavits of his accusers, Margaiet Langley and Caroline Matthews. They are both domestic •servants of Mr B_ tker, a-id" may have li.ien for weeks past exposed to the assiduities of Messrs. King and Bunny. A Puseyite parson on the one side, and v brace, of attorneys on the other. Alelhinks Evo herself was. scarcely in a more ■dangerous position. But Mr. Ph_ra_vn's own affidavit, though daily contradicting tlie worst portions of. iho accusations against him, yet shows most clearly that he was guilty of folly, impropriety, aim iud_.screti.iu; and' that lie should not have resumed his seat on the bench during the trial, after his conversation with the witness. On the other side, however, was a magistrate who .should never have taken his _e.itat all—Mr. Henry St Hill. This gentleman stated in open court that be had been consulted on tbe subject matter of the trial hy Mr. Baker, nud wis theiefore unwilling to •decide the case alone. There can he no doubt ■that he should have retired from the Court •ulto..etlier, instead of taking, as he did, the must active part in the whole alfair. Thete is scarcely _ pin to. .house between him and Mr. 'Puarazyii, in point of propiicly and delicacy. Of course I impute no corrupt motives to either. With regard .» the wholesale charge of want of •fairness and 'impartiality made by Mr. Baker .against eight of the jus-ices, on account of religious nr political aulagouis.u, I have simply "to lemark that not tbe slightest ground has ■been shown Tor such slander'his and infamous •imputations. What is shown, however, is this, viz.,'that Mr. Baker, oI course judging other.-, •by himself, considers religious or political an.igiinism v sufficient reason for giving false uni corrupt judgment Doubtless Mr. Baker would have preferred being tried by those whom he knew to be leligiously and politically biased in his favour , but the prosecutor might possibly ■liuve objected to such an arrangement. And if ■every man who was for any reason biased in ■favor or or against llr. Baker bad refused to -sit when summoned, the bench would have been •empty. Tho magistrates attended in discharge ■of their b.iuiiilen duty, not to screen a criminal —not to punish the innocent—but to do even-Si-ndcd justice: and they did it.

Now det me turn to 'Mr. Baker's lirst letter, •and examine bis " proofs of injustice." He ■complains, iv -the first place, that " the charge was withheld Trom him until memories had ■grown weak, autl -ideas had hardened into ■stie_iiiig.Teali.ies." Memories, even of children, : are somewhat tenacious -in respect of indecent •assaults:; and the idea, in the present instance, must bare hardened into a reality in something 'less than half an hour, according lo the evidence, lordn less than .that-time after the crime was 'committed, it was known to Miss Burbidge ; and Mrs. Langley; a witness -for the defence, wears .'that Miss ..Burbidge told hor of it the wine afieriioon. Neither'does it appear that •tha statement made -by the child at that -time "in any way-varied from that subsequently made t_ her before the Court. The .omplaint so far .is simply Tidiculoiis. Secondly— Mr. Baker complains that Mr. Schroder, the father of the injured child, horse Whipped him-; .hat he (ther'eupnn brought an action against Mr. Schroder; and that .Mr hcliroder then summoned Win Ut the police cnurt for assaulting his child To me this '«>msu appears perfectly natural; especially taking into consideration the fact that, at the 'date or the horsewhipping, Mr. Schroder had J" legal adviser in Wellington. As to Mr. Makers objections to tbe mode of trial, I lind, •on enquiry, thm they apply to every court of criminal procedure'; and could not be altered, 'to sint his particular views, on the present occasion. Nor could the magistrates refuse to entertain a criminal charge against Mr. Baker « r , assanlt -«*B a child, simply because Mr.' JJakcr was i )r i„gi I)( , a ciT j_ ;tcti()n for (images, _M.? P Pet_ ct of a •"'•hscque.it assault, against the ■child's father. b

llnrilly— We find a complaint against disposing of the charge by " the verdict of a mere •ranjonty —a majority of 10 to 6 is something •"ore than a « mere majoritp." But who that ',„."°,. t0 the cruel, the disgusting cross-ex-«mniati(.n to which Miss Schroder and Miss' -nn i fie were sl,l -Ootcd by tho defendant's lil.° • evideiltl y hy instructions received from ■J'wuino from Ins- .limit-can wonder that __. „ rtrfl . a "^J 0 c**»f«dont of the guilt of the nil,, c ' Tc!fllS01 - '" g-ve bim a second opportu--1 t„ i t '. )rt ." li "K: tllo se whom he had already so in nd * V i V'jurccl, by committing him, as they Cm,'. . d(,H0 ' ful ' t-' ll ' hefore the Supreme tv * J U determined lo give immediate effect lit. „r"' _ ? c ' s -°ii. Willi regard to the inlbrnia■"y of whicl, Mr. Baker complains, I can only leneth f elt * 0 " 1 uus nn investigation, so old-. _ ' I,oon conducted with' so much ou i 0 f and p a tie 11C o. com!. y, T Mr ' Balier s, ** tes " t,1,,t t,ie tw " unci tl IVe O'^umstanees,—the crying out, direct- , ' O, - luva - »f the enveloping shawl, nre »it ne '.» c ? I ntn -*-- ott -d by an unimpeachable I'ho " ■ does not happen to be the case, "nmipcttchable witness," Mrs. Lauglcy.

merely states that she/did not hear ihe child-oni out, and that if she had cried out s _ a must liti'v,' board 1.0r,--.... belmr at the time i„ the kitchen, and tie child on the "furthest side of the parlour. Now between this parlour and the k.lciet, there runs _ wide passage of S( ,me length, the door „f i 1,.. kite',,,;! 1, e i,,, „- t Si)me distance from tint ol tho parlour. The feeble cry of a sink child might therefore easily escape the ears of a cook, bustling about the kitchen With regard to the shawl, the evidence of the unimpeachable witness" r.nis' thus ■ " M*trv Schroder was lying on the sofa ; I eoveied her up with a shawl; I threw the shawl over her an.l tucked her in ; it went over the body from' head to foot; I tucked her np, feet and all." And subsequently—"When I went into liie sitting room Mary Schroder was on the s.ifn ; she was half lying, half sitting: she had the shawl wrapped round her then ; 1 saw nn difference to when I Left her." 2\"ow it is simply impossible that this last statement should lie true. Lastly she states, " I am positive that the shawl was lucked round the child's i".:el when I went into ihe room, after the bell rang." Thero is rather too much of a resolution to make tbe most of the shawl. But even supposing the words last quoted to be tree what was there to hinder the accused from replacing the shawl after committing the assault. It appears from Mary Schroder's evidence.that became over and knelt down by her after the affair bad taken place, previous to ringing the bell. Possibly he might have thought a little care would be well bestowed on her dress just at that time.

Let rue vow take Mr. Hott's reasons for believing in Mr. Baker's innocence The first is the only one entitled, even in appeaiance, to the slightest consideration. It is " the discrepancies between the evidence of the child and the governess." On the most careful examination it is clear that these discrepancies are of the very class: nor is there one of them that touches in uny degree the main question. The second reason is, " the want of any intimation of her accusation being imparted to Mrs. Langley (luting Mr. Baker's absence to fetch Miss l.tirbidge." Now as the child knew that Miss Burbidge and her sisters would be with her in a few minutes, she was not likely io say much, before their arrival, to the servant of the person who had just iil-trealeil her. And we find that when her Meads did arrive, she only told what had happened to her sister, aud was at first ashamed even to mention it to Miss Burbidge. ft was hardly probable, therefore, that she would tell her story to Mrs, Langley. Mr. Hort's three following reasons relate simply to the conduct of the two elder Misses Schroder. These young ladies, he contends, ought at once to have left Mr. Baker's house on the relation of the occurrence, despite of Miss Burbidge ; and were wanting in maiden propriety because they obeyed the orders of their mistress. Even supposing that Kate and Amelia were wanting in decision in not rebelling agaiust such order,, does this invalidate Mary's testimony T Next he blames them for subsequently assenting to Mr. Baker's visits at the school, and for making another visit to his house. The last mentioned visit, according to the evidence both of Mrs. Langley and of Miss Burbidge, was made, not to Mr. Baker, but tti Mrs. Langley. And as to the so called assent to Mr. Baker's visits, it does not appear to tne that their assent was ever either asked or given. How could these young ladies prevent this man's visits at a school, the mistress of which was desperately in love with him ? And what has this to do with their sister's evidence? Lastly, Mr. Hort liuds fault with " their not communicating by letter to their mother" on the subject. How does Mr. Hort know whether they did so or not ? Not a word was said on this subject at the trial; and yet Mr. Hort now gives this statement as one of *' my reasons and opinions which induced my decision," to use bis own words. Supposing, however, .that they had not so writteu—and the subject is not a pleasant one, —might they not, knowing, as they probably did, that Miss Burbidge had sent for their father, reasonably delay tbe communication until bis arrival ? And even if they were wrong in not writing, dncs it follow that their sister has perjured herself? I have never heard a weaker defence.

The principle arguments brought forward for the defence are now disposed of. I will not weary and disgust your readers by a recapitulation of alt the evidence given by.the witnesses as proofs uf guilt; but there is oue in particular that deserves a special comment. I allude to the production of Miss Burbridge's letters. Copies nf these, and extracts from them, with a long exculpatory pamphlet by Mr. Baker, were freely offered for inspection previous to the trial. I have seen both, and the impression made on my mind by them was most unfavourable to the accused. It appears from the letters, that the correspondence was commenced immediately after the •assault took place; that Miss Burb.idge was induced to write in the most affectionate terms, under the belief that Mr. Baker intended to marry her; that as soon as a certain number of letters hid been received from her, Mr. Baker suddenly put an end to her delusion; and that he contrived to gut hi. own letters destroyea, while he preserved hers. Now these letters of Miss Burbidge arc'such us no gentleman had a light to keep. They were written under a delusion and contain requests that they may be destroyed. I cannot believe that they would have been preserved, except to serve some ulterior purpose of the holder. What that purpose was is clear enough to me. Mr. Baker dreaded that sooner or later, reports might become current respecting his conduct; and possibly may havo preserved these letters as eortilicates of character. I do not for a moment pretend to justify Miss Btirhidge's conduct . under the above circumstances. Some excuse, however, can always be made for a woman who errs through affection ; but none for the man who takes a mean and cowardly advantage of it. Tlie pamphlet above alluded to contained a scries of extracts from these letters, seasoned with ihe usual amount of holy horror and energetic disclaimers; all of which tlie public now value at their true worth. Tbe most singular sentence, however, contained a confession that he had been in the habit'of kissing all the Misses Schroder, and a pathetic lamentation that a clergyman could not " salute with a holy kiss, young children whom he dearly loved' without being subject to such sad misrepresentations, Now two of these "young children" whom Mr. Baker." dearly loves" appear to be girls of fifleen and sixteen, accord ing to Mr. Hort,—At what age has Mr. Baker been accustomed to draw the kissing line ? It is clear to me, however, that holy kisses are not acceptable to the rising generation. The doctrine is probably a 1 .iscyito or Tractarian emanation ; and the Colony is not yet sufficiently advnncod in religious matters to secure its favourable reception. We must esteem ourselves deeply indebted tn Mr. Baker for giving us iv the present ease so admirable an illustration of the manner in which tho doctrine is usually carried into practice. The development was probably somewhat premature ; but the tei.ui-

iialion iiiu.it always be the same, sooner or later, jind I for one don't like the sequitur. Lot us hope for the speedy arrival of the Bishop, lo remove from the Chii.ch this "'lnpis ofl'eii.ioiiis, etpetra scandali." I remain, Sir, Your obedient .Servant, ... ScnUTATOtI. Wellington, September 30th, 1858.