§ LORD R. CECIL (Marylebone, E.)I beg to ask Mr. Attorney-General whether he will give the express statutory authority, regulation, or order which enables the Treasury solicitor to employ persons other than solicitors to take evidence on behalf of the Treasury in respect of a prosecution undertaken by the Treasury.
§ * SIR JOHN WALTONI have already answered that Question more than once. There is certainly no order, minute, or regulation on the subject.
MR. CLAUDEHAYI beg to ask Mr. Attorney-General whether the Treasury were aware that, when the Crown decided to call Frederick Skinner as a witness in the case of Rex v. Fowler, Frederick Skinner was convicted, on 20th July, 1903, at Oxted petty sessions, for assault on a woman, and that he was sentenced to imprisonment with hard labour.
§ * SIR JOHN WALTONThis person was never called.
§ VISCOUNT TURNOUROn behalf of the hon. Member for the Holderness Division of Yorkshire, I beg to ask Mr. Attorney-General whether the Treasury were aware when the Crown decided to call Henry Wilkins as a witness in the 117 case of Rex v. Fowler, that Henry Wilkins had been convicted on the 13th July, 1903, at Oxted petty sessions, of vagrancy, and on 24th October, 1904, at the same place, of cruelty to animals.
§ * SIR JOHN WALTONI can only make the same answer—this person was not called. I think it quite unnecessary that these gratuitous reflections should be made.
§ VISCOUNT TURNOURI beg to ask Mr. Attorney-General whether it is the practice, when the Treasury undertake the prosecution, to investigate statements made by the defendant at any time; and, if so, why were the statements of the accused Fowler, in the case of Rex v. Fowler, which were published on the 3rd February, 1906, not investigated by the Treasury.
§ * SIR JOHN WALTONThe statements referred to were not known to the Treasury until the hearing of the summonses. It is a matter of doubtful propriety to approach a defendant during the conduct of a prosecution against him.
§ MR. ASHLEYI beg to ask Mr. Attorney-General whether the Public Prosecutor was aware when William Richardson became one of the prosecutors on behalf of the Crown in the case of Rex v. Fowler, that he was convicted on 30th September, 1901, at Oxted petty sessions, of disorderly conduct, and was convicted on 12th January, 1903, at the same place, for disorderly conduct.
§ * SIR JOHN WALTONThis person was not a prosecutor but a witness. The Public Prosecutor informs me that he was not aware that Richardson had been convicted of disorderly conduct when he was called as a witness, but even if he had had that knowledge he would not have considered that the fact necessarily established the conclusion that the man was not to be believed.
§ VISCOUNT TURNOURIs it the practice of the Treasury to rely on witnesses of such character?
§ * SIR JOHN WALTONI have heard of persons quite credible as witnesses 118 having been convicted of disorderly conduct.
§ VISCOUNT TURNOURThis man had been convicted twice.
§ MR. CHARLES CRAIGI beg to ask Mr. Attorney-General whether the Treasury were aware before or during the trial of the case of Rex v. Fowler, that on the 11th February, 1906, the hon. Member for Reigate called on Mr. Fowler in regard to the case of Rex v. Fowler, and that Mr. Fowler stated his case to him and offered to verify his statements by the production of correspondence between Mr. Blundell Leigh, Colonel Brewster, and himself; and, if so, were any, and, if so, what steps taken to do so
§ * SIR JOHN WALTONI have already answered this Question.
§ VISCOUNT TURNOURI beg to ask Mr. Attorney-General whether Robert Taylor, on his oath in the case of Rex v. Fowler, stated he had been deaf for two years; and whether he was called by the Crown to prove overhearing a conversation, in the bar of the Greyhound public house, then crowded by twenty or more persons, by which it was thought to incriminate the accused Fowler.
§ * SIR JOHN WALTONI have nothing further to say on this Question, to which I have replied on a former occasion.
§ MR. SWIFT MACNEILLWho is this immortal Fowler?
§ MR. CAVE (Surrey, Kingston)I beg to ask Mr. Attorney-General whether, having regard to the fact that, in the case of Rex v. Fowler, the Treasury were unable, after the facts had been ascertained, to proceed further with the charge, he will direct that Mr. Fowler shall receive a sum to cover his costs, which are understood to amount to nearly a moiety of his annual salary and wages.
§ * SIR JOHN WALTONThere is no machinery by which this can be done.
§ VISCOUNT TURNOURWill the Government introduce legislation to deal with such cases as this?
§ * SIR JOHN WALTONIf the noble Lord will bring in a Bill I will give it consideration.
§ VISCOUNT TURNOURWill the Prime Minister give facilities for such a Bill?
§ THE PRIME MINISTER AND FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Sir H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN,) Stirling BurghsDoes the noble Lord expect me to promise facilities for a Bill I have never seen?
§ MR. HICKS BEACHI beg to ask Mr. Attorney-General whether there is any precedent to justify the action of the Treasury in the case of Rex v. Fowler in employing a paid election agent to take evidence against his political opponents, in connection with a Treasury prosecution under the Corrupt Practices Acts, in the constituency in which he was the election agent, and in respect of an election in which he was the election agent for the candidate opposed to the candidate of whom the accused was a supporter.
§ * SIR JOHN WALTONI have already answered this Question on former occasions.