§ MR. O'GRADY (Leeds, E.)I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he is in a position to inform the House whether the evidence submitted to him warrants a re-opening of the Watt case; if so, will steps be taken to ensure the presence of the two principal witnesses, Lightfoot and Shuttle.
§ *MR. GLADSTONEI think the hon. Member somewhat misunderstands the position of the Home Office in this matter. I have no power to re-open the case in the sense of re-trying it, or ordering the evidence to be re-heard. All I can do is to consider whether any reason exists for advising the exercise of the Crown's Prerogative of Mercy; and I can only say that the representations which have up to now been made to me afford no sufficient ground for the grant of pardon or remission. I may add that it is not accurate to describe Lightfoot and Shuttle as the two principal witnesses.
§ MR. O'GRADYasked whether as the confession of Lightfoot and the disappearance of Shuttle, two of the principal witnesses in the case, had created a fear in the public mind that there had been a grave miscarriage of justice, the best step would not be to re-open the case.
§ *MR. GLADSTONEsaid he had already explained that he was unable to do that. It was not accurate to describe Lightfoot and Shuttle as the two principal witnesses.
§ MR. O'GRADYI bog to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he has any official information showing that James Shuttle, one of 70 the witnesses in the Watt case, has fled to Canada, and that he was assisted in leaving the country by an agent of the St. Giles' Christian Mission, who admitted to Mr. Hugh Watt's solicitor, that he had handed to James Shuttle a lump sum of money on his leaving the country; and, if so, whether ho proposes taking any action in the matter?
§ *MR. GLADSTONEI learn on inquiry that after the trial the Director of Public Prosecutions thought it right, as Shuttle was unable in consequence of the evidence he had given to obtain employment in London, and was moreover exposed to molestation, that he should, be given an opportunity of making a fresh start elsewhere. Temporary provision was therefore made for his maintenance, and, after an interval, his immigration was arranged through the St. Giles' Mission, an agency for assisting discharged prisoners, the superintendent of which has great experience in helping men of Shuttle's class. Shuttle did not receive a lump sum on leaving the country, but his passage was paid and, as is usual in such cases, a small sum was given him in two instalments after he reached his destination. Of course no condition as to remaining abroad was imposed upon him.
§ MR. O'GRADYIs the Home Secretary aware Shuttle's passage was booked in the name of Edwards, and that he is supposed to be in communication with a certain individual at Ealing, and was given a sum of money for that purpose?
§ *MR. GLADSTONEsaid ho knew nothing of what might have passed between Shuttle and anyone in Ealing.
§ MR. BOTTOMLEYasked if the Home Secretary's attention had been called to a letter recently received from Shuttle, in which he stated that by the arrangements, under which he went willingly, he was bound to remain away at least two years.
§ *MR. GLADSTONEsaid he had seen the communication, but there was no foundation for the statement that any such condition was made.
§ MR. MACVEAGH (Down, S.)Can the Home Secretary tell us whore this money came from?
§ *MR. GLADSTONEIt came from the special service fund.