MR. SCOURFIELDsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether there is any foundation for a statement which has appeared in some of the newspapers, to the effect that Sir Eardley C. Eardley has been set free by his orders, on the application of one of his Colleagues; and, whether Sir Eardley C. Eardley is at present in this Country? For nearly twenty-one years it had been his (Mr. Scourfield's lot to hold a situation that brought him into communication with the Home Office, and he could speak with perfect confidence as to the general care and impartiality exercised in that office in cases of this description.
MR. BRUCESir, I might content myself by saying that for none of these statements is there the slightest foundation. But as insinuations have been made gravely impugning the impartial administration of justice, the House may require some satisfaction, and will, I hope, allow me to state rather more fully what are the real facts of the case. Sir Eardley C. Eardley was convicted of bigamy in January, 1868, and received a sen- 1201 tence of eighteen months' imprisonment with hard labour. About the month of July, application was made to the Home Office for a remission of his sentence, on the ground of ill-health. That application was refused. In the month of October following the application was renewed, with a medical certificate stating that Sir Eardley C. Eardley was suffering under grave disorders, and that his life would be imperilled by his continuance in prison. My right hon. Friend the then Home Secretary (Mr. Gathorne Hardy) not content with the ordinary certificate, directed a special inquiry to be made by Mr. Perry, the Inspector of Prisons. Mr. Perry made a careful investigation, and reported that the prisoner was at that time suffering from asthma and bronchitis, that he also had some symptoms of pulmonary complaint, and that on that very morning he had suffered from an attack of that most painful disease angina pectoris. Under these circumstances, in the case of an ordinary prisoner, it would have been the practice of the Home Office to release him at once; but my right hon. Friend only thought it to be his duty to allow this prisoner to be released on the condition of expatriation—that is, that he was to leave this country for the rest of his sentence. Immediately after my accession to Office I received an application praying for a prolongation of the fourteen days' time which my right hon. Friend had granted him to make preparations for leaving the country. I refused to grant an indefinite prolongation, but extended his leave by the fourteen days, and I received information that on the 7th of January Sir Eardley C. Eardley had left this country, I have every reason to believe that, he has never returned to it, and that he is now abroad. With respect to another portion of the Question, whether the sentence was remitted on the application of my right hon. Friend the First Lord of the Admiralty (Mr. Childers), I am authorized to say that neither directly nor indirectly, through their common man of business, nor through any other person, did my right hon. Friend ever apply for the release of the prisoner. That statement has no foundation. It is one of those statements which, if made upon such authority against a private individual would be received, I think, with general indignation, and as made 1202 against a public man I leave it to the judgment of the House.
MR. GATHORNE HARDYsaid, he could confirm what his right hon. Friend (Mr. Bruce) had stated with regard to the First Lord of the Admiralty. He had had nothing whatever to do with the release of the prisoner. The case was treated in the ordinary way, but with special care, as the Home Secretary had just stated, Under the special circumstances, he thought it was his duty to impose conditions with respect to the relaxation of the imprisonment.