HC Deb 26 November 1888 vol 331 cc158-9
MR. MILVAIN (Durham)

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department the following Question, of which he had given private Notice:—Whether the men Egdell and Richardson, who recently confessed to the commission of the crime of burglary at Edlingham in 1879, were on Saturday convicted and sentenced; whether he would now advise Her Majesty to extend her free pardon to the men Brannaghan and Murphy, now released on licence, who were in 1879 convicted and sentenced in respect of the same offence; whether he would take into his consideration what sum of money ought to be offered to Brannaghan and Murphy by the State as some reparation for nearly 10 years' penal servitude which they had undergone for an offence which they never committed; whether he had determined to take any, and if any what, proceedings against the police upon whose testimony Brannaghan and Murphy were convicted?

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

Yes, Sir; I am informed that the two men who recently confessed to having committed a burglary in 1879 were on Saturday convicted and sentenced; and I shall accordingly advise Her Majesty to extend a free pardon to the men Brannaghan and Murphy, who were convicted in 1879 of this offence, and who have been released on licence. I am now considering what recommendation I shall make to the Treasury on the subject of compensation. I propose to refer the Question which my hon. Friend asks affecting the police to the Director of Public Prosecutions.

MR. MILVAIN

On this day week, I intend to ask whether a free pardon has been granted to those men, and what sum of money has been offered to them?

MR. SPEAKER

Order, order!

MR. T. M. HEALY (Longford, N.)

asked whether the right hon. Gentleman could inform the House why the two men had on Saturday been sentenced to only five years' penal servitude, while the men convicted in 1879 had been condemned to penal servitude for life?

MR. MATTHEWS

I gather from the reports I have seen that the men who were sentenced on Saturday last pleaded guilty to burglary only, and not to the counts charging them with shooting with intent to murder and shooting with intent to do grievous bodily harm, of which more serious offences the two men sentenced in 1879 were found guilty. That probably accounts for the difference in the sentences.

SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT (Derby)

asked the Home Secretary whether he would consider the propriety of instituting an inquiry into the cases in which innocent men were unjustly convicted, with a view to ascertaining the causes which led to such convictions? He had had occasion of recent years to consider the matter, and he thought it desirable some such inquiry should be made.

MR. MATTHEWS

said, he should be happy to consider the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman. The materials had been in a disjointed shape before him more than once.

MR. MILVAIN

asked, whether the right hon. Gentleman was aware that frequent Petitions were sent to the Home Office on this matter during the time the present Opposition were in Office, and that no reply was made to them?

MR. MATTHEWS

said, he was not in a position to state whether that was so or not.

MR. PICTON (Leicester)

asked, whether the right hon. Gentleman would consider some change in the law which would devise some other mode of releasing innocent men than by a pardon for offences they had never committed.

[No reply.]