HC Deb 03 June 1907 vol 175 cc304-7
CAPTAIN CRAIG

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether the presiding magistrate at the trial of Edalji was a trained lawyer with professional experience of criminal cases; and whether he will lay Papers containing the note of the case taken for the use of the Court by the clerk of the magistrate.

*THE-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Gladstone, Leeds, W.)

The magistrate who presided at the trial is not, I understand, a practising lawyer, but he has great experience as Deputy-Chairman of Quarter Sessions. In a trial at Quarter Sessions the Clerk of the Peace does not take notes. The only notes taken are those made by the Chairman for his own use. I do not propose to lay any further Papers on the Table.

MR. F. E. SMITH (Liverpool, Walton)

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether the Home Office Estimates will be set down at an early date, in order to afford an opportunity to discuss the decision of the Government not to offer compensation to Edalji.

*MR. GLADSTONE

If the hon. Member wishes the Home Office Vote taken on an early day and will communicate with the Government through the usual channels, I have no doubt it can be arranged.

MR. F. E. SMITH

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether, in the prosecution of Edalji, any expert evidence was called to prove that he was the author of certain anonymous letters used against him at the trial; whether the same expert witness was called as was proved to have been mistaken in the Beck case; and whether any further evidence was called to prove that Edalji was the author of the letters in question.

*MR. GLADSTONE

An expert was called to explain the peculiarities of the writing of the anonymous letters and to give his opinion; but it was made clear to the jury that they must not accept the expert's ipse dixit, but must themselves compare the anonymous with the admitted writing and form their own conclusion. The letters themselves formed part of the evidence, and it was after most carefully examining them and forming their own opinion that the jury gave their verdict. The expert was Mr. Gurrin, who has admitted that in the Beck case he was mistaken in his belief that the disguised writing of 1896 was Mr. Beck's; but it is right that I should say that he gave before the magistrate, and was prepared to give at the trial, very positive evidence that the disguised writing of 1896 was in the same hand as the disguised writing of 1877, and that this evidence, if it had not been excluded at the trial, would, in the opinion of the Beck Committee, have established Mr. Beck's innocence.

MR. F. E. SMITH

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether there is any reason for withholding compensation from Edalji, other than the suspicion that he may have been the author of the anonymous letters which were produced in evidence at the trial; whether the question was specifically left to the jury whether Edalji was the author of the letters in question; whether there was any specific finding by the jury upon that point; and whether the Committee, who reported upon the propriety of the sentence, had any expert evidence before them, or any evidence additional to that which was called before the jury.

*MR. GLADSTONE

The Answer to the first part of the Question is that compensation has only been given in rare and exceptional cases, where a free pardon has been granted on the ground that the defendant's innocence has been completely re-established. The Answer to the second and third parts is that the letters were admitted in evidence and submitted to the jury, who examined them for themselves. The Chairman in his summing-up referred to the letters, but the jury found a general verdict on the whole of the evidence. As to the fourth part, Sir Arthur Wilson and his colleagues did not take any evidence, but they had before them the whole of the Home Office papers, including Reports on the handwriting, and they state in their Report that they themselves carefully examined the letters and compared them with Edalji's admitted handwriting.

MR. F. E. SMITH

inquired whether, if this doubt had not arisen as to the authorship of the letters, compensation, consistently with the practice of the Home Office, would have been given to this man.

*MR. GLADSTONE

I am afraid I am unable to answer that Question. I must refer my hon. friend to the Papers I have already laid on the Table, for they contain all that I really have to say on the matter.

MR. ASHLEY

asked why this man was released if his innocence was not completely established.

*MR. GLADSTONE

said that was a question which did not really concern him. The release was consequent on a decision arrived at by his predecessor with which, however, he agreed.

MR. HARMOOD-BANNER (Liverpool, Everton)

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether, while Edalji was in prison, any, and what, outrages occurred analogous in character to those for which he was convicted; what was the date and the place of such outrages; and what police reports have been received in respect of the same.

*MR. GLADSTONE

Three outrages of an analogous character occurred while Mr. Edalji was in prison, on the 21st September, 1903, the 2nd November, 1903, and the 24th March, 1904, all in the neighbourhood of Great Wyrley. Full particulars of these outrages were supplied by the police in reports to the Home Office. In one case the offender was convicted.

VISCOUNT CASTLEREAGH (Maidstone)

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether any notes were taken by the clerk or other servant for the use of the tribunal which tried Edalji or as a record of the proceedings; whether the Home Office are or have been in possession of a copy of such notes; and whether the Committee which recently reported upon the subject asked for or had before them a copy of such notes.

*MR. GLADSTONE

So far as I am aware, no notes were taken by the "Clerk or other servant" of the Court.