HC Deb 05 August 1881 vol 264 cc1005-18
SIR EARDLEY WILMOT,

in rising to call attention to the case of Edmund Galley, to whom Her Majesty graciously granted a free pardon in 1879, in accordance with the Prayer of this House, said, that the Motion just submitted to the House having been negatived, he was thereby prevented from bringing forward the Resolution of which he had given Notice in a substantive form; but that circumstance would not prevent him from presenting it in the shape of an appeal to the Government, in fulfilment of the pledge which he had given to those who, both inside the House and out of it, had taken a deep interest in the case of the unfortunate man Edmund Galley. He would commence by apologizing to hon. Members and to the Government for taking a course which, at that late period of the Session, and in the pressure of so much Public Business to be dealt with, would postpone their going into Supply; but the interests of a much-injured man had been intrusted to him, and he knew that the ear of the House of Commons was never closed against the humblest of Her Majesty's subjects, when he sought justice at its hands. They would remember that in 1879, at the close of the Session, the case of Galley had been carefully considered in a long debate, which lasted from 9 p.m. till 2 in the morning, and that the discussion ended by the House unanimously resolving to pray Her Majesty to grant him a free pardon. He (Sir Eardley Wilmot) would not re-open the details which convinced the House of the innocence of Galley. Hon. Member after hon. Member arose to express that conviction; and he might mention that the hon. and learned Gentleman the present Attorney General, who spoke strongly in favour of his innocence, stated in the course of his speech that out of the 114 members of his own Circuit he believed that there was scarcely one who was not of the same opinion. He (Sir Eardley "Wilmot) recollected that the speech of Sir Lawrence Palk—now Lord Haldon— made a great impression upon the House. As a young man, Sir Lawrence Palk had visited the scene of the murder, and the particular locality where the principal witness, the woman Harris, swore she saw the outrage committed; and Sir Lawrence Palk said, from the nature of the ground, and the circumstances of a thick copse closely bordering the road on each side, it was quite impossible that she could have seen the murder committed without being herself seen. He need scarcely call to their recollection the able and eloquent letter of the late lamented Lord Chief Justice, or the testimony of Sir Montague Smith, both of whom were present at the trial in 1836. In the debate in 1879, he had read a letter from the latter, saying he considered it a case of mistaken identity, an extract from which letter was to be found in Hansard, which he held in his hand. He should not have alluded to it now had he not heard that doubts still existed in some minds as to Galley's innocence, and had he not felt that there were some present upon whose minds the minute circumstances of the trial and conviction were not so deeply engraven as upon his own. He would proceed to what had taken place since 1879. Nothing, as far as he knew, had transpired either at the time of the debate, or since, on the subject of compensation. He certainly had never alluded to it himself. But it appeared that someone had held out a hope to Galley, or that he had got the idea into his head, that compensation would be made him by his country for the long and unmerited injuries he had sustained for a period of upwards of 40 years. At all events, Galley felt that he was entitled to it, for he had written early in the following year a letter to Mr. Latimer of Exeter, from which he (Sir Eardley Wilmot) would read an extract. But, before he did so, he could not help paying his warmest tribute of admiration and respect to the persevering exertions of that gentleman on behalf of Galley, for to those exertions Galley's pardon was mainly to be ascribed. Mr. Latimer had been present at the trial at Exeter, and had heard Oliver, who was really guilty, avow in open Court, after the verdict was given, the entire innocence of Galley. He afterwards stood by Oliver on the scaffold when he said— I declare in the face of this congregation that I am guilty, and that the other man is innocent. From the moment when Mr. Latimer heard, in 1877, that Galley was still alive, and that the really guilty man, Longley, had confessed in the Colony, he most warmly and zealously took up Galley's case, and never slackened his exertions till, first by the letter of the late Lord Chief Justice to the Home Office, and afterwards by the debate in Parliament, he had the happiness of seeing those exertions crowned with success. The letter to him from Galley was as follows:— Tkalong, Binilong, June 4, 1880. For Thomas Latimer, Esq. Dear Sir, I hope you will excuse me for taking the liberty of writing to you once more concerning my unfortunate affair, having never heard from you for some months past, I may say never since I received Her Most Gracious Majesty's free pardon. I beg of you as a good friend and Christian to put some of the Home Authorities in mind, according to their promise, that something will he done for me in the way of compensation. I am beginning to think that the excitement in England caused by my unfortunate affair has all died out, and I begin to feel that it's a long time about. I feel that I must be drawing near to the grave, and I feel anxious for those I may leave behind. In May of the present year, he (Sir Eardley Wilmot) had himself received a letter from Galley, which he would also read to the House— Binilong, New South Wales, March 1, 1881. Sir J. E. Wilmot, bart., M.P. for Warwickshire. Dear and honored Sir, i beg of you once more to try and do a most injured man a kind favour by laying my case once more before the house of commons, interceding on my behalf for some compensation for the sufferings that i have undergone during my Life as a Prisoner. Now i am freed from the awful crime for which i have sufered over 40 years wrongfully, i consider as a most injured man, that i am entitled to some compensation from the english government. Through your own kind benevolence and other good gentlemen of England, i received the royal free pardon for which I can never be too thankful. i beg to say that the good gentlemen of eng-land that have done so much for me apear to have forgotten me and my troubles. i hope you, as a good Christian and a gentleman, seeing, that I am an old man now, will try and do something for me in the way of recompense for my troubles. Thanking you for all the kindnesses you have done for me, i beg to remain your most humble Servant Edmund Galley. Binilong, N.S.W. Care of A. B. Paterson, esq. Sir, i forgot to add that I wrote to you some years ago, but never received any answer. He (Sir Eardley Wilmot) was under the impression that he did reply to Galley's former letter; but, at all events, the best answer that could be sent was Her Majesty's free pardon. ["Hear, hear!"] Soon after he received the above letter, he heard from Mr. Latimer that the people of Devon were preparing a Petition to the House of Commons, and also a Memorial to the Home Secretary, to ask for compensation to Galley, and after Whitsuntide both documents were sent to him (Sir Eardley Wilmot) for presentation. The Petition was signed by upwards of 5,000 of the inhabitants of Exeter and Devon (5,230), and comprised most influential signatures, headed by the Dean, the Mayor and ex-Mayor of Exeter, the Mayors of Plymouth, Tiverton, and Totnes, and many Aldermen and Town Councillors of the various boroughs in Devonshire. There were the names of 34 magistrates, 43 clergymen of all denominations, 306 professional and independent men, 18 journalists, and 2,115 merchants, tradesmen, and farmers, besides 2,714 miscellaneous signatures. There were also the names of Mr. Sanders, J.P., Mr. Latimer, J.P., and Mr. Rose, late Governor of Exeter County Gaol, all three having been present at the trial of Galley in 1836, and throughout convinced of his innocence. The Memorial,]which he (Sir Eardley Wilmot) took himself to the Home Office for presentation, was, he understood, as numerously signed, though he did not examine the signatures as he did those to the Petition. Having left an interval of time, in order that the Home Secretary might consider the Prayer of the Memorial, he proceeded to put a Question in the House as to the course the Government intended to pursue, and the reply of the Home Secretary was that, in the opinion of the Government, enough had been done for Galley by the grant of a free pardon. This, however, did not satisfy the people of Devon, who not only had all along felt and expressed a deep sympathy with Galley, but also considered that a certain discredit attached to their county by the fact that an entirely innocent man had been con- victed and sentenced to death in it. They, therefore, urged him (Sir Eardley Wilmot) to proceed further in the matter, which he not unwillingly undertook, for he always had considered that a pardon bestowed on an innocent man was an anomaly, and that the laws which had inflicted the injury should provide amends and compensation. Sir Samuel Romilly, as far back as 1808, brought in a Bill with that object; and he (Sir Eardley Wilmot) intended to bring in a Bill next Session for the institution of a Court of Criminal Appeal, one of the provisions of which would be to empower the Court to award compensation where it was proved satisfactorily that injustice had been done and unmerited suffering had been sustained. Returning, however, to the case of Galley, before he gave Notice of his Motion asking for compensation to him he went to the Home Office in order to seek an interview with the Home Secretary, or Mr. Liddell, the Under Secretary of State, to see if they would not re-consider their decision, and thus avoid the necessity of bringing the matter forward in the House. He was not fortunate enough to see either of the Secretaries; but he saw one of the Assistant Secretaries of the Criminal Department, and also the Private Secretary to the Secretary of State, and, to his surprise and astonishment, he learnt that a belief still existed at the Home Office that Galley was guilty. He thought that that idea had long since been banished from the Home Office; and, bearing upon that, he might mention that, accidentally meeting abroad one of Her Majesty's Judges—one most distinguished in his knowledge of Criminal Law—that dignitary had informed him that at the period when Galley's case was about to be brought before Parliament, in 1879, a late Home Secretary had sent him the Papers connected with the case, and asked his opinion on it. His reply had been—"Galley no more committed that murder than I did myself." At all events, the inquiry by him (Sir Eardley Wilmot) not being what he hoped for, he put down his Motion on the Notice Paper the same afternoon, and to-day they had come to its consideration. It might be said that such a case would afford a precedent for others if the Government consented to give compensation; but he would ask, had not the precedent been already established on more than one occasion? He would refer hon. Members first to the well-known case of Barber, a solicitor, of London, who was convicted, in 1844, of forgery at the Central Criminal Court, along with one Fletcher. Both were sentenced to transportation for life, and sent to Norfolk Island in the autumn of that year. A near relative of his (Sir Eardley Wilmot's) own—in fact, his father—was Lieutenant Governor of Van Dieman's Land at that time. Norfolk Island was under the charge of an official subordinate to the Lieutenant Governor's jurisdiction, and at some distance from Hobart Town; and he was sorry to say, as they all well knew, that dreadful enormities were committed there. Barber was placed, on his arrival, in a most menial occupation, and underwent great and cruel indignities, which injured his health, and he was' afterwards removed to Van Dieman's Land, where he obtained a free pardon in 1848. For, in the meantime, the humane and excellent chaplains, Messrs. Rogers and Naylor, who did their best for the convicts on Norfolk Island, had convinced themselves of Barber's innocence,; and Fletcher himself, his alleged partner in the forgery, had entirely exonerated him from any participation in it. Well, Barber returned to England, and endeavoured to resume his practice in London as a solicitor, in 1855, but in vain. Though a free pardon had been given him, his clerk gave evidence before the Select Committee afterwards appointed by the House of Commons, that he was avoided by clients, as having had the stain of a conviction, though wrongfully, upon him. In his misery, Barber petitioned this House for inquiry; and, through the exertions of Dr. Brady, a respected Member of it, a Select Committee was appointed to inquire into the circumstances of his case, Lord Hotham being its Chairman. After several sittings of the Committee, before whom Barber himself, Major General Childs, and other witnesses were examined, the Committee came to the unanimous opinion that Barber was entirely innocent of the crime for which he had been punished, and "they recommended him to the favourable recommendation of the Government." He (Sir Eardley Wilmot) had the Report of the Committee in his hand (Vol. xii., 1857– 1858, page 617), but he would not trouble the House with it. But the Report stated "that the allegations in Barber's Petition had been substantially proved." He would, however, read to them what occurred in the House afterwards. Dr. Brady, on 19th March, 1859, asked the Secretary to the Treasury (Sir Stafford Northcote) what the Government intended to do in reference to the Report of the Select Committee on the Petition of William Henry Barber? Sir Stafford Northcote said— The case of Mr. Barber had been under the careful consideration of the Government for some time, and no little difficulty had been experienced in deciding how to deal with it. On the one hand, a precedent ought not to be laid down which might operate injuriously in other cases of an analogous nature; and, on the other hand, this particular case was taken out of the ordinary category by the fact that it had been investigated by a Select Committee, who had unanimously recommended it to the special consideration of the Government. The various propositions that had been brought forward had received the attention of the Government, which had felt that the only unobjectionable mode of proceeding would be to give some recognition of the sufferings which Mr. Barber had certainly undergone. This would be attained by a grant of public money to Mr. Barber; and, accordingly, in the Estimates for the coming year such a sum would be included as, without pretending to compensate him for what he had endured, would still be an acknowledgment on the part of Parliament and the country that he had suffered considerably, and was therefore entitled to some consideration of this nature. The other case he would mention was that of Habron, convicted not long since of murder committed by a man named Peace. Through the confession of Peace, entirely exonerating Habron, the latter had received a free pardon. The circumstances of his innocence being established were not unlike, in some respects, to those attending Galley's case, and compensation was awarded to him by the Government. In Barber's case the sum granted was, he believed, £5,000; in Habron's it was £1,000. And now, he would ask, was not Galley entitled to similar amends? For 45 years he had been an exile from his country—at first, a slave condemned to hard and severe labour in a penal Colony; then, as Lord Chief Justice Cockburn had eloquently pointed out, equally a slave on the public roads; and at length assigned, as was the custom with our transported felons at that time, to a landowner, like a beast of burden, in New South Wales, where he had been ever since, with the stigma of a crime which he never committed branded upon him. But, latterly, he had experienced kind treatment, especially from his master, Mr. Friend, now dead. So acutely did he feel his position, that he would not enter the state of marriage till the publication of Lord Chief Justice Cockburn's letter reached him, for he said he would not wish, innocent as he felt and knew himself to be, any woman to take the name of one who had been convicted of murder. He (Sir Eardley Wilmot) had now finished his task. He thanked the House for the kind indulgence with which they had listened to him: and it only remained for him to appeal once more to the Home Secretary and the Government. He asked them favourably to consider, as the House of Commons had done in Barber's and Habron's cases, the unhappy case of this poor old man. They had heard his own appeal in the letter which he (Sir Eardley Wilmot) had read, and in which he besought his fellow-countrymen to do him justice. He (Sir Eardley Wilmot) asked for that justice for him. He asked it in the name of the county of Devon, where Galley had been unjustly convicted; he asked, in the name of all England, that this unhappy man, after 45 years of unmerited suffering, might be enabled, through the generous act of his fellow-countrymen, to return to his native land, and there pass the short remainder of his life in peace and comfort.

SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT

said, that the hon. Member had spent a considerable portion of time in proving the innocence of Galley, and he was surprised to hear it stated that at the Home Office a doubt as to his innocence prevailed. That opinion he understood to be founded on private conversations with his Private Secretary. He was only too glad to afford hon. Members all possible facilities for making inquiries at the Home Office; but he must say that if mistaken opinions gathered from private conversations held there were to be brought before the House, he would be compelled to take steps to prevent such conversations taking place. But the hon. Gentleman's opinion was altogether unfounded. No one at the Home Office, and least of all his Private Secretary or himself, entertained a doubt as to the innocence of Galley. At the beginning of the present year he went carefully through all the Papers, and he held the opinion that the view taken by the late Lord Chief Justice and by Sir Montague Smith was the correct view, and that the case was one of those lamentable miscarriages which sometimes occurred in the administration of justice, and which showed the fallibility of human testimony and of human judgment. Having disposed of that matter, he started with the assumption of the innocence of Galley, as to whom the House had voted that he was entitled to a free pardon. It should not be supposed that he was opposed to compensation being given; but he had a public duty to perform, and would state the considerations which had influenced their decision. The hon. Member said that in all cases of unjust conviction compensation should be given. That was a very large proposition, pregnant with very important consequences, and it was one which had never yet been adopted. There was the case of Mr. Barber, which the hon. Gentleman had referred to, where the Government, from the peculiar circumstances, had decided to award him compensation; but they expressly stated that it was not to be considered as a precedent. But the first thing the hon. Gentleman did was to make it a precedent for another case. They could not do these things without establishing a precedent. It was, of course, entirely for the House to consider in what way they would dispose of the money of the country, and if they were of opinion that compensation should be given in the present case they would say so. He was sorry the House was not in a position to give a vote on this matter, for it was for the House and not for him to decide that point. He had, however, to observe that the hon. Member had given no hint in his speech as to what he considered should be the measure of the compensation, while in his Resolution he suggested that Galley should be allowed a free passage home. If that were all he meant, then he was sure the hon. Member—as he himself would, or many hon. Members present—would find the necessary funds for that purpose.

SIR EARDLEY WILMOT

said, he had purposely refrained from naming a sum, being desirous of leaving that matter to the Government.

SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT

said, he supposed he was to assume that the hon. Gentleman asked for some substantial compensation. Well, there was no evidence before them that Galley himself desired to be compensated, or even that he desired to return home; and what was the use of furnishing a man with the requisite means to enable him to return home if he did not desire to do so? The principle which was laid down by the hon. Baronet was not confined, as he understood it, to the case of Galley, but was intended to apply to all cases in which innocent persons had been convicted of crime. It was scarcely for the Government to accept this principle, but it might be done by the House, in which case great care ought to be taken in fixing the bases on which compensation to be paid out of the public purse ought to be fixed.

MR. NORTHCOTE

said, he thanked the right hon. and learned Gentleman for the generous and candid manner in which he had admitted the abstract justice of Galley's right to reasonable compensation. He (Mr. Northcote) was not in the least disposed to make raids upon the Treasury in the interest of individuals upon any except the most serious grounds; but he did think that the exceptional hardship of Galley's case entitled him to reasonable compensation, and he trusted the matter would be dealt with as soon as possible. He would suggest that a sum equal to that paid to the Irishman Habron, who had also been unjustly convicted, and suffered two and a-half years' penal servitude, should be given to Galley.

MR. J. COWEN

said, he had listened with great satisfaction to the speech of the Home Secretary. Under the circumstances, it was all that the House could expect. He had admitted in the most unqualified way that Galley was innocent, and he did this after having perused the whole of the documents in the case—both the letter of the late Lord Chief Justice and the information exclusively in possession of the Home Office. Such a declaration made by the Home Secretary would be a source of unfeigned pleasure to the unhappy man himself, to the number of gentlemen who had taken an interest in him, and, he believed, to the House at large. He did not wish to mix the case up with any general argument as to the wisdom or necessity of establishing a Court of Appeal and granting compensation in all cases where justice miscarried. That was a very wide subject, and one upon which there might be great difference of opinion. It was not desirable to encumber the present inquiry with broad debates on such a very complicated question. What they wanted the Government to do was to judge the matter upon its merits and to deal with it. He did not believe there had ever been a harder case, in recent years, submitted to the consideration of the Legislature. It was very simple, but it appealed to the sympathies of every generous person. This unfortunate man had, after the lapse of nearly half-a-century, been declared guiltless of the crime of which he had been accused. Apart from the agony of mind that he must have endured over his trial and conviction, the personal hardships he had been subjected to were such as few Gentlemen present could realize. They should remember that transportation to Botany Bay, at the time Galley was sent there, was one of the most severe punishments that could be inflicted. It was a pandemonium of vice and cruelty. He had the acquaintance of Mr. John Frost, the Chartist, who was also transported to New South Wales; and he remembered hearing from him a recital of the misery and suffering that the unfortunate convicts were subjected to. With a knowledge of these facts—seeing that Galley himself was now 80 years of age, and that he could not long live to enjoy any compensation the Government could give him—the necessity for action, and for prompt action, was urgent. No private Member could make a proposal for a sum of money to be granted; but if the Home Secretary would undertake to say that the Government would favourably consider the question—and if they could promise to give such a sum as had been given to Habron, who was convicted of murder, but afterwards found to be innocent, by the confession of the man Peace—he was sure it would give satisfaction, not only to Members of that House on both sides, but to the country. He recollected the discussion that took place there last Parliament. He never in his experience had seen the House of Commons so unanimous as it was on that occasion. It would not only be an act of justice, but it would be an act of generosity, if the Ministry could lighten the load of misery that had accumulated round this unfortunate man during the 45 years that he had struggled under the stigma of murder, and been subjected to the punishment of penal servitude.

MR. WARTON

said, he wished to express his general satisfaction with the statement of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Home Secretary. He was sure the ratepayers would cheerfully provide for a grant of £1,000.

SIR H. DERMMOND WOLFF

admitted the prudence of not establishing a precedent for such cases, but hoped the Government would accede to the appeal.

SIR JOHN KENNAWAY

said, he had derived much pleasure from the way in which this proposal had been received by hon. Members on both sides of the House. The Government of the day, by consenting to commute the punishment to which Mr. Galley was sentenced, had admitted that they were in the wrong, because if they believed that he was guilty they should have allowed justice to take its course, or if they believed that he was innocent they should have liberated him at once. As it was, the poor man had been kept in penal servitude for 44 years; and now, when he was past 80, he had been thrown upon the world without any provision for himself or for his family. It would be a mere farce to give this man an annuity, looking at his age. What should be done was to give him such a sum as would enable him to make some small provision for his family.

MR. MITCHELL HENRY

observed, that this was eminently one of those cases in which the Government required to be pressed from both sides of the House. It was a case in which justice should be done. Nothing in the form of private subscription would meet the case, or would satisfy the feeling of the House of Commons, as reflecting that of the country. He hoped that the Home Secretary would not forget the old adage, that "Bis dat qui cito dat" The case of this unfortunate man had frequently been debated in that House, and at length, after great difficulty, and mainly owing to the efforts of the hon. Member opposite (Sir Eardley Wilmot),he had received a free pardon. It was, however, very little use giving a man who never was guilty a free pardon, if he was to be deprived of the opportunity of getting his livelihood at his extreme age; and therefore he trusted that the Government would show no more official coyness in the matter, but that the Home Secretary would take a course with regard to it which would reflect honour upon himself and would be appreciated by the country.

SIR HENRY TYLER

agreed that the provision for the old age of this poor man should not be left to private subscription, but should be voted by Parliament. The mere fact of his receiving a free pardon after enduring 44 years' penal servitude, might leave it open to be supposed that he had only received the benefit of a doubt; whereas if Parliament made provision for him, it would be clearly understood that he was entirely innocent of the offence of which he had been convicted. He trusted that without any further debate the Home Secretary would yield to the universal feeling of the House, and would consent that a grant should be made from the public purse to this old man. The occasion was one for the exercise, not of mercy, but of justice.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)

said, that, speaking on behalf of the Home Secretary, who was precluded by the Rules of the House from again addressing the House on this subject, he would state the course which the Government intended to pursue in reference to this case. His right hon. Friend had not been an inattentive listener to the discussion that had taken place; and as he now understood that it was the opinion of every Member of the House apparently that some money payment should be made to this man, he was not disposed to put himself in antagonism to that view. At the same time, he (the Attorney General) was sure hon. Members would feel that it was impossible that the Home Secretary could propose that compensation should be given in every case where a man who had been convicted was afterwards proved to be innocent. If, however, in the present case Parliament should by a strong expression of opinion be disposed to take upon itself all responsibility in the matter, and if it were universally understood that this was an exceptional case, and that it was not to be drawn into a precedent, the Home Secretary was not disposed to do other than give full consideration to what had fallen from hon. Members on both sides of the House, and would make inquiry into the circumstances and position of this man, and hoped to be able to give effect in a short time to the wish of the House in the matter.