§ Postponed Proceeding on Question; "That a sum, not exceeding £128,735, be granted to His Majesty, to complete-the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1908, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Office of His Majesty's. Secretary of State of the Home Department and Subordinate Offices, resumed."
§ (MR. CALDWELL (Lanarkshire, Mid.) in the Chair.)
§ *MR. SMEATON (Stirlingshire)said there was a Motion in his name for the reduction of the Secretary of State's-salary, his object being simply to draw his attention to the volume of evidence given before the Royal Commission on vivisection. That volume contained revelations of the most startling kind, and it was perfectly clear that the law of 1876. was habitually disobeyed, and in some cases flagrantly violated; in the operations of vivisection the motives of humanity seemed to be very little realised and hardly even to influence the operators. As the right hon. Gentleman was aware, a very large body of opinion was being directed to this subject, not only in this country, but also abroad—in the United States and in Continental countries. There were hundreds of thousands of His Majesty's subjects, of both sexes, —largely of the gentler sex—who were deeply moved by the disclosures now before the Royal Commission. Opinion was growing that there must be a great deal more humanity shown in vivisection operations than was at present manifested. 995 The opinion was also held that if the Government could not control these vivisection operations efficiently and thoroughly they had far better abolish vivisection altogether. In 1905, although there were actually 38,000 experiments, only twenty-three of these were inspected at a cost of 850 guineas to the State. Of these 38,000 experiments, 2,506 were vivisection properly so-called; the rest were probably inoculations. In the past three years, out of 89,519 operations, only ninety-three were inspected, at a cost of 2,581 guineas. He thought that was a flagrant waste of public money. There were two inspectors who received, one 500 guineas and the other 350 guineas. These gentlemen were not whole-time officers, but they received whole-time fees. They got the equivalent of the salaries of many professional men, and he was obliged to conclude that not only was there a waste of public money for which the Home Office was responsible, but the inspectors were inefficient and the inspections absurdly few. In fact the whole organisation of inspection was a farce—a ridiculous farce; and for very shame, if for no other reason, reform— and immediate reform—was urgent. Another extraordinary disclosure of the volume was that the Home Office took no steps whatever to detect or investigate cases of unlicensed vivisection. The law laid down that inspectors were from time to time to visit registered places where vivisection was carried on, and it laid down a set of conditions for the legal conduct of these experiments which the inspectors were supposed to watch constantly. It was perfectly plain that if the Home Office gave no instructions to its inspectors to detect and inquire into cases of unlicensed vivisection, unlicensed operations would go on at a rate which those who had spoken to him on the subject thought was positively alarming. He found in the same year, 1905, there were sixty contraventions of the Act, of which one only was the result of official investigation and detection, and fifty-nine wore due to the confessions of the experimenters themselves. If there were fifty-nine experimenters who confessed that they had contravened the law, how many hundreds, possibly thousands, were there who did not confess? Although the Commissioners in 1876 recommended that there should be inquiry into the 996 humanity with which these experiments were conducted by the operators, yet no such inquiry had been made. And in this respect he would like to quote a passage from a letter by Professor Huxley, who was a member of the Commission in 1875. In his letter to Darwin Professor Huxley called himself "the counsel for science;" that was to say that he was anxious that these vivisection experiments should always have scientific results. He wrote:—
I have felt it ray duty to act as counsel for science, and was well satisfied with the way things were going. But on Thursday, when I was absent at the Council of the Royal Society, Mr. Klein was examined, and, if what I hear is a correct account of the evidence he gave, I may as well throw up my brief. I am told that he most openly professed the most entire indifference to animal suffering, and said he only gave animals anætheties to keep them quiet. I declare that I did not know that a man lived who was such an unmitigated cynical brute as to profess and act upon such principles, and I would willingly agree to any law which would send him to the treadmill.That was the opinion of a great scientist who would have gone a great length to forward the interests of scientific research; and yet that was what, in his hot indignation, he said, and how he cursed the cruelty which which the so-called scientific research caused to the dumb creatures who minister so greatly to our pleasure, happiness, and comfort At the present time there were no means of ascertaining whether a candidate for a licence was a man likely to show humanity in his operations. Questions and answers in the Report showed that the inspectors depended wholly on the good faith of the licensee that the conditions of the Act were observed. Then again, it was reported that the use of the drug called curari was not uncommon. This curari was absolutely prohibited by Clause 4 of the Act. The effect of curari was to paralyse the motor nerves and the muscular action while the subject was at the same time under the influence of the anæsthetic; when the influence of the anæsthetic was exhausted the effect of the curari still continued, and the unfortunate animal was unable to move a muscle or make a struggle to show the pain it was in. Then again, another violation of the law was that anæsthetics were not uncommonly applied, not by the operator himself, but by what he called his laboratory boy—a person who knew 997 nothing whatever about anæsthetics, had no responsibility whatever, but simply administered the anæsthetic for as long as ho thought fit, while the operator himself was absolutely paying no attention to the condition of the animal. Then, again, there was evidence of the probable frequency of illegal vivisections. He found that the Home Secretary in 1901 admitted in June or July that Messrs. Burroughs and Wellcome held no licence, although they were carrying on vivisection. Notwithstanding this offence against the law, the Homo Secretary granted them a licence in September of the same year. That seemed to him a very gross violation of the law. These people were carrying on illegal vivisection and breaking the law, and not only were they not prosecuted, but they were actually granted two licences. He thought that was a condition of affairs which warranted very severe condemnation. Another point was that according to the Act of 1876 the licences were to be signed by certain distinguished professional bodies, and it was especially laid down that if the candidate himself belonged to one of those bodies, he must not sign his own certificate. He found that a very eminent professional man, Professor Starling, was reported to have actually signed his own certificate under which his licence was granted. The House had been listening for several hours to the importance of inspection of factories and workshops in order to prevent anything like an approach to hardship to men and women workers; and there was not one man in the House who was not in sympathy with the appeals which had been made. But surely the dumb creatures who depended upon us and who were so helpful to us merited some consideration at their hands at least to prevent positive cruelty and torture at the whim of so-called scientific operations? What a melancholy contrast between the diligent and strenuous inspection of factories and the miserable sham inspections of the shambles devoted to vivisection !He suggested that the inspectors should be largely increased in number, and the Home Office put in a position to judge whether they had conducted their inspections efficiently. There ought, too, to be high fees charged for licences, which should go towards the remuneration in part of the increased body of inspectors. 998 He would be out of order in suggesting changes in legislation. But he urged on the right hon. Gentleman the need of vigilance and of drastic reform in the direction of inspection, and of checking of the present barefaced neglect of the law. He hoped much would come of the Report of the Commission; and meantime the country would watch the operations of vivisection with a jealous eye.
§ MR. AKERS-DOUGLASsaid he wished to dissociate himself from the remarks of the hon. Member with regard to the inhumanity of the administration of the Vivisection Act. His experience was that the administration of that Act and the conduct of the inspectors was most humane. Ho was certain there was nothing like undue cruelty.
§ MR. SMEATONsaid he had never imputed to the inspectors that they condoned cruelty, but that they did not take the opportunity of examining the cases.
§ MR. AKERS-DOUGLASsaid in that respect then he had misunderstood the hon. Member. But the hon. Member had said that sufficient care was not taken in granting licences to members of the profession.
§ SIR F. BANBURY (City of London)said that some hon. Members on that side agreed with the hon. Member opposite. They did not complain for a moment of the action of the inspectors, but they felt very strongly that they were insufficient in number.
§ MR. AKERS-DOUGLASsaid there had been made against those who carried on this scientific work a great many charges which could not be justified on examination. In his opinion due care was taken to see that licences were not scattered broadcast, but were granted only to those who were authoritatively recommended. Referring to the Aliens Act, he expressed his satisfaction at the deportation under that Act of foreign criminals who had been convicted in this country. The consequent decrease in the number of such prisoners was very marked. In 1905 he remembered that the alien prison population 999 was increasing and it increased in a greater ratio than other prisoners. In 1906, in the English prisons, whilst the total of British prisoners fell by 6.32 per cent., the aliens total fell by 16.85 per cent.; that was, they fell from 4,098 to 3,399, leaving the total lower than at any other time since 1899. Those figures were very satisfactory. He asked whether any circular had been sent to quarter sessions and other courts calling attention to the clauses of the Act. As the Home Office had no power to deport a criminal alien without a certificate from the court, it was essential that courts of quarter sessions should be informed of their responsibilities under the Aliens Act. He had two questions to put in reference to the settlement of the dispute between Messrs. Kynoch and the Home Office. Had Messrs. Kynoch given up their contention that the use of mercuric chloride was not in contravention of the terms of their licence; and had they given an assurance to abide by the construction put on the terms of their licence by the Home Office? Did the agreement come to with the Home Office also bind the Admiralty and War Office and prevent them from taking action against Messrs. Kynoch with respect to the ammunition they had supplied to the Army and Navy?
§ *MR. GLADSTONEsaid he gladly responded to the appeal made to him by the right hon. Gentleman. He did not know whether Messrs. Kynoch had given up their view that the use of mercuric chloride was not in contravention of the law, but they had given the Home Office the assurance that they would abide by the decision of the court of quarter sessions and discontinue the use of this unauthorised ingredient, and that they would strictly observe the terms of their licences. If the firm has given the Home Office that assurance in a bona fide manner—and he was bound to say he thought they had—it did not matter to the Home Office if they reserved a pious opinion as to whether or not their action was or was not against the law. The object of the Home Office was to get sufficient protection for the public, and they felt certain they had secured that object. His answer to the other question of the right hon. Gentleman was in the negative. The Home Office dealt with Messrs. Kynoch only so far as Home 1000 Office questions were concerned, and the War Office and Admiralty could deal with the firm in their own relations as they thought fit. In answer to other questions, he said that in December, 1905, a circular explaining the expulsion clauses of the Aliens Act had been sent to the courts of quarter sessions, and a further circular on the same subject had recently been sent to police authorities. It was not intended to proceed with the Eight Hours Bill this session after the measure had been introduced for the consideration of the country. He hoped the Report of the Metropolitan Police Commission would soon be issued. He agreed that it was most undesirable that its publication should be further delayed. A question had been asked as to the expulsion orders under the Aliens Act. That part of the Act had been administered with good results. He was glad to believe that the expulsions which had been already effected had produced a very considerable improvement, more particularly in the very worst class of disorderly houses in the metropolis. He considered that part of the Act a valuable provision of the law, and he would do his best to make it still more useful in its application. He had been asked a question in regard to the Borne Convention on the use of yellow phosphorus. It was not true to say that this country was isolated in its position. Japan, Norway, Sweden, Austria-Hungary, Belgium, Spain, and Portugal took up the same position. The question raised by the hon. Member for Stirlingshire was one of great importance and interest, but it was also one of an extremely complicated nature. He did not hesitate to admit that the administration of the law relating to vivisection had given him a great deal of difficulty. He was quite conscious that, not being a surgeon, physician, or physiologist, he could not penetrate into the mysteries of these things. All he could do, as all his predecessors had done, was to exercise such common sense as he possessed in the administration of the law, and he would say that he and those associated with him had worked the law to the best of their ability. He agreed with his right hon. friend in his protest against any thought being entertained that either the inspectors or any of those concerned in the administration of the law were in the least degree wanting in humanity, or that they were more deficient in humanity 1001 than any of those who thought it their duty to attack the law and those whose duty it was to administer it. Although he had great sympathy with the views of the hon. Gentlemen on both sides of the House who were opposed to vivisection, he honestly felt that this was a matter in which sentiment had to be kept with considerable strictness within the bounds of reason.
§ SIR F. BANBURYsaid he did that in all cases.
§ MR. GLADSTONEsaid he had been aware for a long time of the interest the hon. Baronet took in dumb animals. As to the use of curari he had to say that it was never used by itself. It was sometimes used, but it was always accompanied by an anæsthetic. His hon. friend had stated that Professor Starling had signed his own licence. That was a statement which might be misinterpreted by the Committee. Under the law a licence had to be signed by a professor of physiology, and by a member of the College of Physicians and Surgeons. Professor Starling was a professor of physiology, and the signing of his own licence relieved him of the necessity of getting the signature of another professor of physiology. He had not hoard of the particular ease, but he imagined that that was the instance to which his hon. friend alluded. He would suggest to his hon. friend that it was impossible to carry this matter further on the present occasion. This was a matter of very great importance and difficulty, and for that reason he was instrumental in advising His Majesty to appoint a Royal Commission to inquire into it. Until the questions raised by the hon. Member for Stirlingshire had been thoroughly considered and the Report of the Royal Commission received, he could not take any action except that of administering as well as he could the law as he found it. His right hon. friend the Member for the Forest of Dean had said that there had been retrogression in the administration of the law in regard to lead poisoning.
§ *SIR CHARLES DILKEsaid he did not use the word retrogression in connection with the administration of the law by the Home Office.
§ *MR GLADSTONE,admitting that that was so, said he wished to state in clear and distinct terms that, as a matter of fact, there had been no alteration in the position of the Home Office during the last ten years in regard to this question. They used every effort to discourage the use of lead, and in those cases where they could not prohibit its use, and where its use was inevitable, or essential, they discouraged the use of dangerous forms of it. He assured his right hon. friend that there would be no change at all. The right hon. Gentleman had alluded to a speech attributed to one of his respected colleagues at the Home Office, to whom he paid a proper tribute for his public spirit. He had had communications with Mr. Cunynghame, and he understood that the report of that speech was not a shorthand one, and was not in fact accurate. A corrected report was not sent by Mr. Cunynghame.
§ *SIR CHARLES DILKEsaid the Journal of the Society of Arts gave opportunities for correction, and, as the subject was a dangerous one, he assumed that the report was corrected.
§ *MR. GLADSTONEsaid that the matter was probably explained by the fact that Mr. Cunynghame had had to go away for his health. Mr. Cunynghame had asked him to express his regret that the misunderstanding had arisen. Mr. Cunynghame's personal attitude was that he yielded to no one in the earnest desire that a substitute for lead could be found. He (Mr. Cunynghame) said this most emphatically, and in support of it wished to add that he had procured and read everything that had been written about leadless glazes in English, French, German, or Italian, and it was only with the greatest regret that he feared that the abolition of load throughout English pottery was impracticable. He (Mr. Gladstone) could assure the right hon. Gentleman, so far as the Home Office was concerned, that not only would there be no retrogression, but that they would do everything in their power to stem the apparent increase in the number of cases of lead poisoning and so prevent what was undoubtedly a great evil. The hon. Member for Monmouth had referred to the question of life-saving apparatus in 1003 mines. They believed that it was necessary to proceed cautiously in the matter. Perhaps the Committee were not aware that after the Courrières disaster some German life-saving apparatus was bought and some men went down the mine. Unfortunately something went wrong and the man who had the apparatus lost his life and two who had not any apparatus were uninjured. It was quite clear, therefore, that science was still somewhat at fault; and the Royal Commission had found that it was impossible to say at the present moment that any particular apparatus was so above suspicion and so much better than any other that they could advise the Government to recommend its use. The hon. Member for Clitheroe had devoted most of his speech to the question of time - cribbing. A magistrate could take his own action as to whether or not he would fine in every case, but he agreed that a small fine of £10 was not a deterrent to time-cribbing on the part of a great company. The hon. Member referred had to one case where an inspector apparently discouraged the help of the police. He would inquire into that. He thought it would be most unfortunate if the co-operation of the police was discouraged in any way. He was sorry that the hon. Member for Leicester had made a remark which seemed to cast some aspersion upon Dr. Whitelegge. He did not think the hon. Member could have meant it. The medical experience of Dr. Whitelegge had been of inestimable advantage to the industrial population of the country and of immense use to him in his administration of the Factory Department. He had the fullest trust and belief in Dr. Whitelegge's capacity, and he was glad on this occasion to make an acknowledgment of the public service which he had rendered. He believed the educational value of the examination which was now enforced was very great indeed and enabled them to secure the services of competent men to discharge the difficult duties imposed upon them under the Factory and Workshops Act. The hon. Member for Leicester had denounced the organisation of the Factory Department of the Home Office, and pressed him to say that a Select Committee would be appointed to inquire into it. He would say frankly and fairly that he would have nothing to do with the appoint- 1004 ment of a Select Committee. If he thought it necessary he would be a party to its appointment at once, but he did not. Moreover, the Factory Department was at present working at full stretch, and he would ask the hon. Member to consider the effect the appointment of a Committee of Inquiry would have at the present time. It would dishearten and disorganise the whole of the Department and would stop the good work going on. It would be disastrous in its effect, and he did not believe it would produce any good results. He could not therefore in any sense assent to his hon. friend's proposal. The appointment of a Royal Commission with regard to mines offered no parallel, because there was no Department on Mines at the Home Office and the question had to be considered in relation to the inspectorate. He thought that the Commission might give some valuable suggestions with regard to the inspectorate; and he preferred to leave. the whole question till the Royal Commission had reported. The Factory Department had, however, not only been growing for years, but it had been growing in strength and efficiency from year to year, and he was not going to put a stop to that growth and development. On the contrary, he would encourage it by every means in his power and not discourage and disorganise the Department by appointing a Select Committee to inquire into its work.
§ *MR. F. E. SMITH (Liverpool, Walton)said that he wished to direct attention to an entirely different subject; but one which had been repeatedly discussed by Question and answer across the floor of the House. He referred, as the Committee was probably aware, to what had become known as the Edalji case. If one were to attempt to open the whole of the case adequately, it would certainly take at least two days to do it; and he should devote himself, not to that object, but to the modest object of convincing the Committee that there was a prima facie, case that even in regard to the reparation which the Home Office had recently made there had been a very grave miscarriage of justice on the findings of the Committee which the right hon. Gentleman had himself appointed. It was in no sense a Party question, for if there was any reflection at all upon the Home Office that reflection, at least to. 1005 some extent, attached to the office in the clays when it was presided over by his right hon. friend. He mentioned this to show that there was no hope and no intention of making Party capital out of the question. The only charge against the Home Office, as an office, lay in the practice which had been adopted for many years of not interfering with sentences unless some fresh evidence presented itself. That being their principle, it was clear that the Home Office under the presidency neither of the right hon. Gentleman nor of his predecessor could give very great relief in such a case as the Edalji case. When the Criminal Appeal Bill was under discussion, the right hon. Gentleman spoke with contempt of newspaper commissioners.
§ *MR. GLADSTONENot with contempt.
§ *MR. F. E. SMITHsaid he gathered that that was the tenor of the right hon. Gentleman's observations. The only observation he had to make with regard to that was that the reparation which had already been made—first, the admission that Edalji was entitled to have a grossly excessive sentence of seven years reduced to three years, and, secondly, that there existed adequate reasons for giving him a free pardon—had been brought about by the agitation which took place in the newspaper Press, and in which Mr. Labouchere and Sir Arthur Conan Doyle were conspicuous and disinterested figures. He had no right whatever to claim any of the credit of the Edalji incident, and of the reduction of the sentence which his right hon. friend thought was just. The credit belonged to Mr. Labouchere and Sir Arthur Doyle, and he had no share in it. Passing from the newspaper commissioners let him ask the House to consider what were the circumstances under which the only charge which still survived—the charge of having written certain anonymous letters—first came to be made. The Rev. S. Edalji, who twenty-seven years ago became vicar of Great; Wyrley, and who was the father of Mr. George Edalji, was a Parsee by origin occupying the anomalous position of a clergyman in the Church of England, and was not likely to be very popular among a provincial community. The Rev. S. Edalji, Mrs. Edalji, and Miss Edalji were witnesses against whose 1006 credibility no one had ever made any allegation. The family however, for a considerable number of years past had bitter, powerful, and rancorous enemies in the parish in which they lived. The material circumstances in connection with these anonymous letters was that from 1892 to 1896 a series of anonymous letters was addressed to Mr. Edalji, the father, letters which were couched in an extraordinary vein and which presented many points of analogy to the letters of a later date of which the right hon. Gentleman still said that Edalji was the author. It was impossible to form a judgment on the later anonymous letters unless they formed a judgment on the letters which preceded them. The first step in fact which the Committee must grasp was that the first letters bore great marks of resemblance to the later ones, and on the face of them were the work of a man determined to injure the younger Edalji, and disclosing every symptom of a disordered mind. The first letters were in the handwriting of an adult, and were written when George Edalji was sixteen or seventeen years of age. They were written to the father. One of them read as follows—
My dear Shaparje,I have great pleasure in informing you that it is now our intention to renew the persecution of the Vicar of Great Wyrley… revenge, revenge on you.… I have to-day potted in your name postcards of a most hellish nature… you are sure to be arrested.Yours in Satan.On 17th March the following letter was received—I swear by God that I will murder George Edalji and F. B. soon; the only thing I care about in this world is revenge, revenge, sweet revenge, then I shall be happy, yes happy, in hell, in hell, in hell… Now I seldom bet, but I will bet this time that your kid and F. B. will before the end of this year be either in the graveyard or disgraced for life. … I do not think Hell is such a bad place after all and I long, yes I long, to be there rolling in the flames of Hell-fire that shall never be quenched… never, never, never. I know that I am lost, oh, oh, oh, Christ, Christ, Christ help me! Oh, I am lost, God have mercy, Christ help. Every day, every hour, my hatred is growing against George Edalji and F. B. If I could get into an empty railway compartment with them I would do for them both.He did not think anyone acquainted with the psychology of crime would say that 1007 the author of those letters was George Edalji aged seventeen and of unimpeached sanity. About this time advertisements of a scurrilous character were inserted in the papers at some slight expense which were extremely annoying to the Rev. Mr. Edalji. From 1892 to 1896 this first batch of anonymous letters continued and then nothing was received from 1896 to 1903. There was complete silence in the whole matter. The man who wrote them might have been in gaol or a lunatic asylum or have changed his work. He asked the Committee to form a picture of what George Edalji was in 1903. In the first place, he was aged twenty-eight years, a man of studious habits, who had left the Rugeley grammar school with a good character from every teacher, and proceeded to the Mason College at Birmingham to study law, which college he left without a single testimonial which was not a good testimonial. He gained prizes and scholarships, and at the ago of twenty-eight he produced a book upon railway law which bore every evidence both of industry and capacity. No charge whatever had been brought against him; on the contrary, he had received testimonials as to moral character from every man who had had opportunities of judging him from day to day observation. The only circumstance which had been or could be alleged against him was that at the age of twenty-eight he was in pecuniary difficulties—a not uncommon circumstance in the case of men of his position in life qualifying for an expensive profession. In February, 1903, horrible cattle-maiming began in the neighbourhood in which he resided. Then commenced a second list of anonymous letters, addressed this time to the police. The suggested authorship of the second batch of anonymous letters was the only justification for the stigma which the right hon. Gentleman continued to impose on this unfortunate man. [Some cries of "Oh."] The right hon. Gentleman's own Committee had found that at the time these outrages took place the police in the district were being universally discredited because of their failure to discover the offender. The Committee said—The police were extremely anxious to bring the offender to justice, having been baffled on every side.1008 Let hon. Members read the first letter upon which the right hon. Gentleman said he would not clear the character of this man, or give him compensation, because he thought some tribunal might find that Edalji had written these letters. The first letter was written to the police in March, 1903. It ran—I know all about horses and beasts, and how to catch them best. I had never done none before till these two horses near the line at Wyrley… I caught them both lying down at ten to three and they roused up and I caught them each under the belly, but they didn't spurt much blood… I know all the Edaljis. It is not true we always do it when moon young, and the one Edalji killed on 11th April was full moon night.The second letter, on which the expert, Mr. Gurrin, expressed his opinion, which this competent lawyer was supposed to have written to the police, began—Edalji is going to Bruin on Sunday night to see the Captain near Northfield about how its to be carried on with so many detectives about, and I believe they arc going to do some cows in the day time. You bloated blackguard, I will shoot you with father's gun through your thick head if you come my way.' I don't remember writing this letter, but I may have.No tribunal up to the present time had ever found that he had written those letters. How could the writing of such a letter as the second be imputed to a sane man? He challenged the right hon. Gentleman to state what could he the motive. The third letter was sent to a boy in the village and said—Colonel Bridgeman has granted a warrant to arrest you for killing cattle. There is a warrant for George Edalji and F. W, I have warned Edalji… told him what to do to save yourselves.If the case were founded on those two letters it was complete against the hypothesis on which the right hon. Gentleman had chosen to base himself. But there was a postcard also, and would it be believed that the expert Gurrin committed himself to the view that Edalji was not only the author of those three letters, but also of this postcard, which was addressed to Edalji himself, at the solicitor's office where he worked, and where everyone could read it? It was couched in terms so foul and shameful that he should not be tolerated if he read them; he would only say that it charged Edalji with having committed acts of immorality 1009 with a lady justly and universally respected in the neighbourhood. They were asked to believe that such a thing could be done by a man to whom insanity had never been imputed. It was suggested that the authorship of these anonymous letters was brought home to Edalji at the trial. He was careful to speak with the greatest possible respect of the deputy-chairman who presided at the trial, yet the right hon. Gentleman's own Committee had pointed out that this Edalji case was one of very great inherent difficulty. This trial was before a lay bench presided over, not by the ordinary chairman, but by the deputy-chairman, assisted by no legal advice to guide him through the maze of these difficulties, with no clerk even sitting there, but with the occasional assistance of a member of the junior bar, who was not, able to remain in Court during the whole of the hearing of these most difficult and intricate charges. The trial of Edalji was most unsatisfactory. There were two indictments, one for killing a pony, and the second was as to the authorship of the letters. And here he would say at once that if the charge had been tried by the jury on the second issue the case he was submitting would have been incomparably weaker; in fact the prosecution decided to abandon the second of these charges, or at any rate did not proceed upon it, and confined themselves to the charge of wounding. It was a charge of wounding without any specific issue being left to the jury, and they were asked by the right hon. Gentleman's Committee to infer that the jury thought that Edalji had written these letters. He knew that no consideration would influence this Committee so much as the disquieting possibility that this man after all might be completely innocent of the horrible offence with which he was charged. He did not argue that, he had too much experience of criminal cases to insult the intelligence of the Committee by attempting within the space of an hour to treat a case the trial of which occupied two or three days. He would confront the right hon. Gentleman with one most 1010 sinister and disquieting passage from the Report of his Committee—The police carried out their investigations, not for the purpose of finding out who was the guilty party, but for the purpose of finding out evidence against Edalji.Those who had conducted prosecutions on police evidence knew the appalling risks which arose where the police approached a case with a preconceived conviction of the guilt of the accused, and there was no one who had ever practised at the Criminal liar to whom the preliminary finding reached by the right hon. Gentleman's Committee was not full of cause for anxiety. The Committee declared it was doubtful if the jury would have convicted at all if they had not been in some way influenced by the anonymous letters. They said—The conviction was unsatisfactory, and after a full consideration of all the facts we cannot agree with the verdict of the jury.It was a principle of English law that if the prosecution failed to substantiate the charge and prove the prisoner guilty he was to be treated as innocent of the offence with which he was charged, and he protested that the findings of the right hon. Gentleman's Committee amounted to this, that with all the cruelty and consequential injuries which were involved, they imprisoned for three years a man on whom, by their own showing, they had no right to lay a hand. What was the justification for that? The only' justification suggested either by the right hon. Gentleman's Committee or by the right hon. Gentleman himself, was that Edalji wrote those letters. He made no attack on the intelligence or honesty of the expert witness, Gurrin, upon the handwriting, and believed he intended to give honest evidence; but he was discredited by the evidence he had given in reference to handwriting in the Beck case. The right hon. Gentleman should remember the opinion expressed of the greatest expert in handwriting who was called by Maitre Labori in the Dreyfus trial, and who, like Sir Forrest Fulton, regarded evidence as to handwriting at all times with the 1011 greatest suspicion. What was in effect the position of the Home Office? The jury found the man guilty on no other charge than that of killing the pony. Now, the one point upon which a jury were competent to pronounce was whether a man was or was not guilty of such a charge, but a question which they were least competent to decide was whether a man wrote certain letters in a matter of disputed caligraphy. The right hon. Gentleman bound himself to some supposed finding of the jury upon an issue upon which they were not competent to pronounce an opinion, while overruling their actual decision on a matter well within their competence. If it were true that there never was a finding that Edalji wrote these letters, let him ask whence the findings came which made it impossible for the right hon. Gentleman to relieve the man from the stigmas—he would say nothing at the moment about compensation — which destroyed his whole professional career as finally as if the original verdict of the jury had stood. He wished to speak of members of the committee with profound respect, but with even greater respect of the criticisms and comments of the most experienced and able Judge who sat in the Court of Appeal when he was nominated for the committee. He would read what Sir Robert Romer said.
§ *MR. GLADSTONEsaid the letter of Sir Robert Homer was written after he became a member of the committee.
§ *MR. F. E. SMITHsaid it was not disputed that Sir Robert Romer wrote this letter, and he was not a man to change his mind. The letter said—
It appears to me that, if such an inquiry is embarked upon, it must be done according to the ordinary rules of procedure governing a criminal trial. It ought to be public, or not at all. Witnesses ought to be examined and cross-examined.If that had been done there would have been very little heard of the Edalji case. That view was not adopted and as far as 1012 the authorship of those letters was concerned the Committee would hardly credit that there was not any finding by the right hon. Gentleman's Committee which showed that they ever brought their own judgment to bear on the question whether Edalji wrote the letters or not. They said—We are unable to disagree with what we take to be the finding of the jury as to the letters.They assumed the finding of the jury, and said they were unable to disagree with what they took to be the finding of the jury. They said—We are not prepared to dissent from the finding at which we think that the jury arrived.It was not pretended that this committee, eminent though its members were, had any particular knowledge of handwriting, and quite obviously they never brought to bear on the authorship of the letters their own independent judgment. They purported to found themselves on a supposed verdict of the jury which was never given. On internal evidence it was incredible that Edalji ever wrote these letters; secondly, no tribunal ever found that he had written them; thirdly, no tribunal had ever tried him for writing these letters. He commended that to the attention of the right hon. Gentleman, with the reminder that the man was besmirched with the insinuation that he wrote the letters and was refused any inquiry as to whether ho wrote them or not. While Edalji was in gaol a horse was killed by ripping. A man called Green confessed to that outrage. The police knew that he had confessed. Inspector Campbell, with Green's confession in his pocket, was asked, "Have you found out who did it? He answered, "No, Sir," and afterwards said, "I beg your pardon, we have an idea." "Has nobody admitted that he did it?" he was asked, and when further asked" Is he in Court?" the answer was "Yes." Would it be believed that this man Green was permitted to leave the country a few 1013 weeks afterwards, and no charge was brought against him, and that he was never arrested? On 2nd November, eight days after the conviction, two horses were mutilated in the same way, and on 24th March following two ewes and a lamb had their throats cut and a man was convicted for that offence, and the prosecution had adopted the suggestion that Edalji was a member of a gang. He would confront the right hon. Gentleman with the evidence of his own committee, who reported—Of the existence of a gang there appears to be no evidence.In Staffordshire the opinion was that those who imprisoned their fellow-subjects incurred some small responsibility, and the recurrence of these outrages shocked the public conscience. Consequently a petition signed by 10,000 persons was presented to the Home Secretary asking for a reconsideration of the case, and a Mr. Yelverton wrote to the chief constable of the district, the official directly responsible for the conduct of the police. The chief constable, in reply wrote—November 8th, 1903.Dear Sir.I beg to acknowledge your further letter inclosing some more testimonials to George Edalji's general good character. It is right to tell you that you will find it a simple waste of time to attempt to prove that George Edalji could not, owing to his position and alleged good character, have been guilty of writing offensive and abominable letters. His father is as well aware as 1 am of his proclivities in the direction of anonymous writing, and several other people have personal knowledge on the same subject.The Committee would realise now why he had laid stress on the unblemished reputation of the elder Edalji. The statement made by the chief constable was not only false in itself, but it was repudiated by Mr. Edalji, son., The recipient wrote back at once and said these were most serious allegations and challenged the chief constable to produce the name of a single man who would come forward and substantiate the allegation that Edalji wrote those letters. 1014 The chief constable did not see fit to answer that letter. Was it not evident that this was a case which cried aloud for inquiry? This very gentleman was the man who made repeated representations to the Home Office since the conviction of Edalji, and he would ask what sort of representations they were likely to be? Were they likely to be of such a character as to lead to a fair consideration of the case by the Home Office? The right hon. Gentleman in his speech on the Criminal Appeal Bill said there was a reason for not disclosing those representations? Would he say whether they were in the prisoner's interest? Did they not repeat the charges made to Mr. Yelverton? Mr. Edalji, sen., being able to detect this particular insinuation, communicated with the right hon Gentleman and asked whether the chief constable had supplied him with any evidence in addition to that adduced at the trial for the purpose of supporting the case against his son. He should have thought that the father's petition was a reasonable one when he asked whether there was any fresh evidence to the sifting of which he might devote his scanty resources in order to vindicate his son's character. The right hon. Gentleman replied that it would be contrary to the practice of the Department to communicate the contents of reports made to him by the police in connection with applications for the exercise of the prerogative of mercy, as all such reports were of a strictly confidential character. The right hon. Gentleman was specifically asked whether there was any information in addition to what was adduced at the trial for the purpose of supporting the case of the prosecution. Was there any hon. Member on the benches opposite who would cheer the proposition that the Home Office was entitled to withhold from Mr. Edaiji, sen., any additional evidence which supported the case for the prosecution? If he had an opportunity he would gladly test whether that was the view of the Committee as a whole in the Division Lobby. What 1015 became of the indignation of this country? He recalled a time when we involved ourselves in our own virtue and talked of the secret dossier in France. In connection with the Criminal Appeal Bill it was stated that in the interest of prisoners, inquiries were constantly being made of a confidential character, and that information was given only because it was confidential. That line of defence would not help the right hon. Gentleman so far as his refusal disclosed in this document was concerned. He had spoken of the secret dossier; they had also the chose jugée, and for the "honour of the Army" had only to substitute the "honour of the police." He did not rest the case of Edalji in the least upon compensation. The House might judge what his claim to compensation was. His career had been destroyed, he had been in prison three years, and his father from the resources of an indigent clergyman had spent £600 in legal expenses. The strength of the case did not lie in the claim for monetary compensation but in the claim of a citizen of this country that his character should be vindicated or destroyed by a public inquiry. There had been no public inquiry. He would abandon and he believed that Edalji would abandon the question of compensation if the Home Secretary would give an opportunity of a public inquiry at which the police could be examined and cross-examined with the Press present. It was to the House of Commons, and the House of Commons alone, that the right hon. Gentleman could be made responsible. It was to the House of Commons that Edalji made the last appeal which the circumstances of the ease permitted him to make. He himself did not believe that the House of Commons, if the case was properly put to them, would turn to such an 1016 appeal with deaf ears. If they did so meet it, it was only left for this unhappy young man, brooding over his ruined career, the long drawn years of his imprisonment and his branded name, to draw such consolation as he could from the reflection civis Britannicus sum.
§ *MR. GLADSTONEsaid the hon. and learned Gentleman had only left him five minutes in which to reply.
§ *MR. F. E. SMITHsaid he had made repeated efforts earlier in the evening to bring up the case, but he was not fortunate enough to be called upon by the Chairman.
§ *MR. GLADSTONEsaid the hon. and learned Gentleman was not present at all, so far as he knew, before dinner.
§ *MR. F. E. SMITHsaid the right hon. Gentleman had made an allegation which was totally incorrect in a point in which accuracy was specially desirable. He was present, and he consulted the Chairman as to when he might reasonably expect to be called upon, and he availed himself of the first opportunity that was given to him.
§ *MR. GLADSTONEsaid he did not observe the hon. and learned Gentleman in his place. [Cries of "Withdraw."] He did not know that the hon. and learned Gentleman had made any attempt to rise. He was absolutely unable at that hour to make a full statement on the case, and he must point out at once to the House that the hon. and learned Member had made a speech—he did not contest his right at all—on a criminal case which lasted four days when tried by a jury, and which, he said, would 1017 take him two days to set out properly before the House. Ho accepted the statements which the hon. and learned Member had made in perfect good faith. He was not in the least doubting his good faith, but he had given no possibility to any Member of the House of knowing anything about the history of this most important investigation. He asked the House to remember that this case was tried before a jury, and that the jury returned a unanimous verdict. He also asked the House to remember that the case had been for years before the Home Office and before his own predecessors, that it had been submitted to two Lord Chancellors, and to the law officers of the preceding Government, and that every kind of expert advice had been called into being to assist their deliberations. Ho must remind the House also that, for reasons which he had no time or opportunity of stating, he submitted the whole case to three gentlemen whose experience and honour could not for a moment be impugned, that they probed the case from beginning to end, that they examined every single one of the allegations of the hon. Member, and reported to him in the document which he had laid before the House of Commons. He asked the House to remember that while it was entitled to insist on every information being given to it, yet it was not a Court of Appeal, and that it would be disastrous in the highest degree if it took upon itself the functions of a Court of Appeal. He asked the House, therefore, to withhold its judgment.
And, it being Eleven of the Clock, the Chairman left the Chair to make his Report to the House.
§ Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Monday next.