§ MR. O'GRADY (Leeds, E.)I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to the fact that Shuttle, the ex-convict, one of the witnesses in the Hugh Watt's case, has got into trouble in Winnipeg, Canada, and to the indignation expressed in that town over the action of the British authorities in sending Shuttle to Canada without notifying the Canadian police; and what steps he proposes to take in the matter.
§ The following Questions also appeared on the Paper:—
§ MR. BOTTOMLEY (Hackney, S.)I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware that the man Shuttle, one of the witnesses in the case of Rex. v. Watt, and who was recently deported at the expense of the special Service Fund to Canada, has already come into collision with the Canadian law; and whether, before deporting at the public expense any other witness for the prosecution in this case, especially to British Colonies, he will inquire into his record.
§ MR. MITCHELL-THOMSON (Lanarkshire, N.W.)I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware that the deportation of James Shuttle, one of the witnesses in the Watt case, to Canada has raised indignation in that country; whether, in consequence of popular feeling there against this action of His Majesty's Government, Shuttle has been forced to remove to the United States; whether His Majesty's Government have received any representations 1368 on the subject from the Government of Canada; and whether he recognises the objections to lending Government aid to the emigration of persons whose presence at Home is undesirable.
§ *THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. GLADSTONE,) Leeds, W.In answering this Question I propose to deal also with the Questions of the hon. Members for South Hackney and North-West Lanark. I have seen a newspaper report of the occurrence to which the hon. Member refers, but I have no other information with regard to the matter. Shuttle had never been sentenced to penal servitude and was not under police supervision. In consequence of the evidence which he had given ho was unable to obtain employment in London and was exposed to molestation. It was thought right to assist him in making a fresh start in life. He went to Canada voluntarily. No conditions as to his remaining there were imposed upon him. Under these circumstances it was not, in my opinion, the duty of the police in this country to send notice to the Canadian police of the man's antecedents. No representations have been received from the Government of Canada on the subject, but should any representations be received full and, I think, satisfactory explanations will be at once given.