§ MR. EWARTbegged to ask a question of the right hon. Baronet the Secretary of State for the Home Department. It appeared that a person named Thomas Drewery had been tried at the Wakefield sessions in December, 1845, on a charge of horse-stealing. Unfortunately he was too poor to defend himself; and having attempted to prove an alibi, he failed, and was sentenced to seven years' transportation. Application was subsequently made to the Home Office in his behalf, and an alibi offered to be proved on the strongest testimony; but it was stated that to acquit a prisoner in this way was altogether without precedent, and the consequence was that the sentence remained unrevoked, and after being confined two years in Pentonville prison he was sent out in May last to Van Diemen's Land. Since his departure a criminal named John Webster had confessed that it was he who had stolen the horse for which Thomas Drewery had been transported, and that to obtain possession of the horse he had used the name of Thomas Drewery. There was now no doubt of the truth of this statement, the whole circumstance having been fully investigated. The man Drewery was, however, still a prisoner in Van Diemen's Land, though a totally innocent man. The question he had to ask the right hon. Baronet was, whether he had received any information of the case at the Home Office, and if so, what measures he intended to take in consequence of that information?
§ SIR G. GREYreplied, that the case re- 1437 ferred to had been brought under his attention by the hon. and learned Member for Hull (Mr. Baines). It was quite correct that Drewery had been tried at the Wakefield sessions in December, 1845, charged with the crime of horse-stealing, and that evidence was now offered to show that he was not guilty. At the same time he cautioned the hon. Member (Mr. Ewart) against prejudging the question, and assuming all at once that the statement of the convict Webster was true. Statements of this kind were not at all of unfrequent occurrence. At the same time he admitted that there were circumstances which gave an appearance of probability that the statement was true; and, at all events, quite sufficient to call, not for an immediate pardon, but for such an inquiry as would establish the truth. The facts of the case, however, had not been quite correctly stated. The man was charged with horse-stealing, and two witnesses most distinctly swore to his identity, and to his connexion with the offence. The evidence, it appeared, was given in a manner that quite satisfied the jury of his guilt, and he was accordingly found guilty. Subsequently a statement was communicated to the Home Office on the declaration of three persons, who offered to prove an alibi in favour of the prisoner. It turned out, however, that one of these persons had been in court at the time of the trial; and in such circumstances, though there was no positive rule that no evidence could be received at the Home Office after a verdict, the evidence produced must be received with great caution. He might state that the verdict of the jury was entirely approved of by Mr. Williams, chairman of the sessions. However, as he had already stated, the whole subject was receiving the fullest consideration, and proper inquiries were making as to what credence ought to be given to the statements of the parties who had come forward. He might state, in conclusion, that Drewery went out to the colony on a free pardon, on condition that he should remain there, and not return to this country.