§ MR. BERNARD COLERIDGE (Sheffield, Attercliffe)asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether he is aware that Richard Walford and Henry Hardwick were convicted in April, 1879, for shooting, and sentenced to 20 years' and 15 years' penal servitude respectively; whether he is aware that, in answer to an application on their behalf, the then Home Secretary, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby (Sir William Harcourt), on the 23rd of August, 1880, re- 45 fused to interfere with the sentences; whether he is aware that, after this refusal, two other persons then undergoing sentence for another crime confessed to having committed the crime for which Richard Walford and Henry Hardwick were then undergoing punishment, and exculpated them from all complicity; whether he is aware that, in consequence of these confessions, Richard Walford and Henry Hardwick were liberated from gaol on the 27th of February, 1883, after having undergone four years' penal servitude; whether he is aware that, on the 19th of March, 1883, the then Home Secretary, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby, promised that if further proof should be given of their innocence the question of granting them a free pardon should be considered; whether further proof on affidavit has since been given to the Home Office, confirming the confessions above mentioned, and exculpating Richard Walford and Henry Hardwick; whether he is aware that in 1885 arrangements were made by the Home Office for allowing the men to report themselves by letter, and why; and, whether he is prepared, under the circumstances, to grant Richard Walford and Henry Hardwick a free pardon?
§ THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. MATTHEWS) (Birmingham, E.)My answer to the Questions of fact is in the affirmative, except that the two persons mentioned in the Question did not confess that they had committed the crime of which Walford and Hardwick were convicted. And that the affidavits recently sent to the Home Office did not contain any fresh evidence; but were the same as my Predecessor had considered in 1883. The privilege of reporting by letter is occasionally conferred on licence-holders, where the circumstances of the case justify any such concession. I am not prepared on these materials to depart from the decision of three of my Predecessors—that this is not a case in which the grant of a free pardon can be advised.
§ In answer to a further Question,
§ MR. MATTHEWSsaid, that in February, 1883, it was decided, as the case was surrounded with doubt, that the prisoners ought not to be punished any longer; but after consultation with 46 the Judge who tried them, and the Law Officers of the Crown, the Home Secretary declined to advise that they should be pardoned.