HC Deb 03 December 1888 vol 331 cc829-30
MR. MILVAIN (Durham)

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether Her Majesty's pardon has been extended to the men Brannaghan and Murphy, now released on licence, who were in 1879 convicted and sentenced in respect of the burglary at Edlingham Vicarage, in the County of Northumberland, to the commission of which offence two other men have recently confessed, and have been convicted and sentenced; and, whether any, and if any what, sum of money has been offered to Brannaghan and Murphy by the State as some reparation for nearly 10 years of penal servitude for an offence of which they were innocent?

THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. MATTHEWS) (Birmingham, E.)

Yes, Sir. A free pardon has been granted to these men. I have obtained the sanction of the Treasury, under the exceptional circumstances of this case, to offer to each of these men a pecuniary compensation amounting to £800. I shall be glad to consult with my hon. and learned Friend as to the best mode of investing and applying this sum for their benefit.

MR. MILVAIN

The right hon. Gentleman has not answered the first part of my question as to a free pardon.

MR. MATTHEWS

I began by saying a free pardon has been granted to the men.

MR. H. GARDNER (Essex, Saffron Walden)

Are we to understand that the men have been granted £800 each?

MR. MATTHEWS

Yes, Sir; I have already said so.

MR. PICKERSGILL (Bethnal Green, S.W.)

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, with reference to the case of Michael Brannaghan and Peter Murphy, who have just received a free pardon, Whether his attention has been called to the fact that the magisterial inquiries which preceded the committal of the prisoners for trial were conducted with closed doors, and that it is believed in the locality that this circumstance contributed to the miscarriage of justice; and, whether the inquiries which have recently been made by the Government into the case have disclosed the reasons which led the magistrates to exclude the public?

MR. MATTHEWS

I understand that the Justices, in the exercise of the discretion vested in them by law (11 & 12 Vict. c. 42, s. 19), conducted this inquiry with closed doors; but I am not aware of any grounds for believing that this circumstance contributed to the miscarriage of justice. The prisoners were defended by a solicitor, who cross-examined on their behalf. My answer to the second paragraph is in the negative.