HC Deb 09 August 1881 vol 264 cc1379-81
MR. LEAKE

asked the Secretary of State for War, Whether the shorthand writer's notes of the trial "Thomas v. The Queen" are the same as are printed in a verbatim Report of that trial extending to 844 folio pages; if so, whether he observed the evidence that, at Shoeburyness, in September 1860, a shot of 175lbs. weight, with a charge of 25lbs. of powder, was for the first time on record projected 10,075 yards from a 7-inch 7-ton gun designed by Mr. Lynall Thomas, and that General Campbell, a Crown witness, affirmed that Mr. Thomas's gun was the most powerful piece of rifled ordnance that up to that time had been produced, having regard to the weight of projectile and the charge employed; whether he observed that the judge in his summing up drew attention to the fact that, whenever the decisive question was put to the Crown witnesses whether Mr. Thomas's gun was not substantially the same as the Woolwich 7-inch muzzle-loading guns of the Service, he, the judge, could never get a direct answer to the question; whether he observed that after fifteen days' investigation, and after hearing the evidence and cross-examination of such eminent witnesses for the Crown as Mr. Bramwell, Captain Noble, General Campbell, and others, the special jury gave a verdict for Mr. Thomas; whether, in his perusal of the proceedings on appeal, he observed that the Divisional Court of Queen's Bench quashed the verdict on technical grounds only; whether he is aware that the late Attorney General on August 4th 1879, stated in the House that this decision did not involve the question whether Mr. Thomas was or was not the originator of the system of heavy ordnance; and, whether, under these circumstances, he will reconsider his decision in the case of Mr. Thomas?

MR. CHILDERS

Sir, in reply to the first part of my hon. Friend's Question, I have to inform him that the shorthand writer's notes are in print. But I must altogether decline to treat separately, and explain to the House in the course of an answer to a Question, particular statements by individual witnesses. I have already expressed my opinion upon the whole ease, after carefully reading the evidence, counsel's speeches, the Judge's Charge, and the proceedings in the Queen's Bench Division. I ought, however, to say, with reference to my hon. Friend's suggestion that the verdict was quashed on technical grounds, that the words used by the Judges were that the "verdict was not satisfactory," that— There clearly must be a new trial. We stopped you (the Attorney General) upon the evidence, because we were of that opinion, and that "the foundation of Mr. Thomas's claim wholly failed." Again— There was no contract at all from the beginning to the end between the Government and Mr. Thomas. I can only, therefore, repeat that Mr. Thomas, in my opinion, has no claim whatever on the Exchequer, legal or equitable, except as a matter of mere compassion; and I am not prepared to recommend Parliament to make him a grant on this ground for the reasons I have already given.

MR. LEAKE

said, in consequence of the answer given by the right hon. Gentleman, he should call attention to the matter early in the next Session.