§ LORD R. CECIL (Marylebone, E.)I beg to ask Mr. Attorney-General whether one Frank Attwood Huckle was employed by the Treasury to obtain statements from witnesses proposed to be called on behalf of the Crown in the case of Rex v. Fowler; whether Huckle is the secretary of the Reigate Liberal Association and acted on behalf of the hon. Member for Reigate as his election agent at the late election; whether it is usual for the Treasury to employ election agents to get up evidence in a criminal case; and, if not, why the usual course was departed from on this occasion.
The following Questions on the same subject also appeared on the Paper—
§ MR. COURTHOPE (Sussex, Rye)To ask Mr. Attorney-General whether
† See (4) Debates, elx., 1063.1339 one Frank Attwood Huckle approached the Treasury in May last, five months after the offences alleged against Fowler in Hex v. Fowler; whether any inquiries were then made by the Treasury as to the bona fides of Huckle; and whether it was then ascertained that Huckle had acted as the election agent of the hon. Member for the Reigate Division of Surrey.
§ MR. BRIDGEMAN (Shropshire, Oswestry)To ask Mr. Attorney-General why seven months were allowed to elapse before summonses in the case of Rex v. Fowler were applied for at the Oxted Petty Sessions, on 13th August last, on behalf of Taylor and Flood; and whether the Treasury had all the information, upon which it was decided to proceed, in February, 1906.
§ MR. CLAUDE HAYTo ask Mr. Attorney-General whether the Treasury solicitor was aware at the time the prosecution of Fowler was undertaken that reductions of the staff of Ling-field racecourse had been decided upon by the owners thereof in 1903; that in January, 1904, the first reduction of staff took place; that further reductions were decided upon on the 16th March, 1905, and in July, 1905; and that on the 14th December, 1905, and the 23rd January, 1906, the dismissal of some of the prosecutors in Rex v. Fowler was ordered by the representatives of the owners, to whose orders Fowler was amenable.
§ MR. CLAUDE HAYTo ask Mr. Attorney-General whether one Taylor, a prosecutor in the case of Rex v. Fowler, was called as a witness by the Treasury to prove a conversation in a public-house, upon which a charge brought by the Treasury was based; whether Taylor is known to be and admits he is a deaf man; and whether Richardson, a prosecutor in Rex v. Fowler, has on several occasions been convicted of drunkenness.
§ MR. CLAUDE HAYTo ask Mr. Attorney-General whether the statement of one William Richardson, a prosecutor in the case of Rex v. Fowler, was taken by one Frank Attwood Huckle upon instructions received by Huckle from the Treasury: and whether the 1340 statement of one William Arthur Kenward was made to one Hood and sent to Frank Attwood Huckle.
§ MR. HICKS BEACHTo ask Mr. Attorney-General whether one Frank Attwood Huckle paid the expenses to London of the prosecutors, Hood and Taylor, in the case of Rex v. Fowler, and took Hood and Taylor to the Treasury.
§ MR. ASHLEYTo ask Mr. Attorney-General whether the statement of William Richardson in Rex v. Fowler was made, on instructions received from the Treasury, to one Frank Attwood Huckle; and whether the statement of William Arthur Kenward was made to Hood and sent to Huckle.
§ *THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir JOHN WALTON, Leeds, S.)I have communicated with the Public Prosecutor, and he informs me that the prosecution followed the ordinary course. We received a complaint from Mr. Huckle, who had been employed as agent for the Liberal candidate, that statements had been made to him that certain of the electors had been intimidated. Mr. Huckle was asked to produce the materials on which the complaint rested. At his suggestion to the Public Prosecutor, some of the witnesses who complained of intimidation were invited to attend the Treasury. They did so and were examined in person, and their evidence was taken by experienced members of the official staff. I have seen that evidence and I think it undoubtedly constituted a very strong statement as to language of intimidation having been used. Mr. Huckle was then asked whether that was the sole evidence he had to produce. He thought there were other persons who might be able to give corroborative evidence, and he furnished further statements of other witnesses with that object. The whole of the evidence was considered for a considerable period. I was asked to say whether the Public Prosecutor ought to refrain from prosecuting, having regard merely to the difficulty of obtaining a conviction. I told him that he must consider the case on its merits; that he must form a conclusion as to whether the evidence was sufficient and satisfactory, and that if the conclusion was favourable the case ought to be taken 1341 before the Court without reference to any difficulty which might attend obtaining convictions in cases of this class. The matter was considered by the Public Prosecutor and he brought the case before the magistrates. Of course he could not anticipate the defence, but the prosecution was not hastily undertaken. There were ample materials to support it.
§ LORD R. CECILWas Mr. Huckle employed to obtain statements from witnesses called on behalf of the Crown?
§ *SIR JOHN WALTONNo; only in the sense that on being asked whether the evidence he first produced exhausted his case. He then produced two other witnesses. When an election offence has been committed the person likely to complain is the election agent, who would naturally hear of matters involving a violation of the law.
§ LORD R. CECILWas it suggested to him that he should obtain a further statement?
§ *SIR JOHN WALTONNo. He was only asked whether the first evidence produced was the only evidence.
§ VISCOUNT TURNOURWill the right hon. Gentleman lay on the Table a copy of the statement furnished by Huckle?
§ *SIR JOHN WALTONsaid the whole correspondence was privileged, and its publication would be contrary to the public interest.
§ MR. CLAUDE HAYpressed for a detailed Answer to his Questions.
§ *SIR JOHN WALTONsaid the Public Prosecutor informed him that Taylor when before him appeared to be in full possession of the sense of hearing. As to whether one of the witnesses had previously been convicted of drunkenness he thought that if in an election inquiry all persons who had been convicted of drunkenness were to be ineligible as witnesses it would be impossible ever to secure a conviction.
§ *MR. COURTHOPEWhy were seven months allowed to elapse before the summonses were applied for?
§ *SIR JOHN WALTONAs a matter of fact, only three and a quarter months were allowed to elapse, and that period was devoted to a careful sifting of the evidence, to ensure that no hasty and ill-considered prosecution should take place.