It was said of Baggallay, a barrister, that he ‘was not the greatest of parliamentary successes’ and was ‘far more at home’ on the bench than in the House.
Baggallay’s family had long possessed ‘high commercial standing as warehousemen’ in the City of London. They had a longstanding connection with the Merchant Taylors’ Company, which admitted Baggallay as a member in 1839.
The Standard, one of the leading Conservative newspapers, described Baggallay as ‘a most eloquent man’ when he stood for Hereford at the 1865 general election.
It came as no surprise, then, that Baggallay divided against the Liberal government’s 1866 reform bill, and was in the majority that defeated Russell’s ministry on Dunkellin’s amendment for a rateable rather than rental franchise, 18 June 1866. Although he had been elected less than a year earlier, Baggallay was considered as having the necessary qualifications for legal office by the incoming Derby ministry. Discussing the credentials of one potential Irish solicitor-general, Disraeli asked Derby, 12 July 1866, ‘would he be better than Baggallay, who if R[olt] went to Ireland, would probably be your solicitor [general]?’
Having made his maiden speech against the poor persons’ burial (Ireland) bill, 17 Apr. 1866, Baggallay only made one other recorded speech in his first spell in Parliament. His other intervention, 5 Apr. 1867, was on the case of John Toomer, who had been convicted of detaining and repeatedly raping his children’s governess Miss Partridge, but while the judge had found the defendant guilty he also implied that the prosecutrix had encouraged him. Baggallay warned that to pardon Toomer, as some MPs wanted, would brand the victim as a ‘harlot and a perjurer’, which was not ‘fair or just’. The sentence must stand unless evidence was brought forward that the witnesses had perjured themselves, as Toomer’s defenders maintained. The best way of ascertaining the truth, declared Baggallay, would be for a separate, but new trial for perjury to test the truth and honesty of Toomer and the other witnesses.
Baggallay put his legal knowledge to good use serving on the select committee on the 1868 married women’s property bill. At this time, the common law did not acknowledge women as having an independent legal existence separate from their husbands regarding property. This was mitigated in theory by the courts of equity which allowed wives to retain property separate from their husband’s control through trustees. In practice, however, the committee found that the equity courts did not push their ‘decisions to their legitimate conclusion’, and rarely awarded the wife the whole sum to which she was entitled, often granting a portion to the husband or his creditors.
Baggallay opposed Gladstone’s Irish church resolutions, 3 Apr. 1868. Speaking at a county meeting in Herefordshire that September, he repudiated the idea that the Church in Ireland had ceased to be useful.
Baggallay returned to the Commons in October 1870 as MP for Mid-Surrey. Appointed as solicitor and then attorney-general in Disraeli’s second ministry, his political career terminated on becoming a judge in the court of appeal in 1875. Knighted shortly after, Baggallay sat as an appellate judge until retiring in 1885. The Times observed that he was a ‘most courteous, kindly, and careful judge, whose amiability and fine sense of justice made him generally beloved by his learned brethren and by those who practised before him’.
