§ VISCOUNT CASTLEREAGH (Maidstone)I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Homo Department whether 1080 his attention has been called to a note as to the practice of the Home Office in dealing with criminal petitions, issued as an Appendix to the Papers relating to the case of George Edalji, in which it is stated that it is useless to attempt to re-try at the Home Office, on paper, cases already heard in open court before a jury, that the Home Office cannot hear counsel, does not see the witnesses and cannot judge of their demeanour, and has no means of arriving at the truth by means of cross-examination, and that therefore, any attempted re-trial of the case would necessarily be inferior in every way to the original trial; will he say whether the Committee who recently considered the case of Mr. Edalji were in any better position for enabling them to re-try the case than is the Home Office; and, if not, whether he will advise the appointment of a Committee to hold a public inquiry into the whole circumstances of the case, with power to hear witnesses and to call for papers and records.
§ MR. GLADSTONEYes, Sir. I am fully aware of the Memorandum to which the noble Lord refers, which correctly states the position. Sir Arthur Wilson and his colleagues did not attempt to retry the case of Mr. Edalji. They consented to examine the documents in the possession of the Home Office and to report to me. My correspondence with Sir Robert Romer, which has appeared in the Press, shows that I should have been glad to appoint such a Committee as the noble Lord suggests, but I had no power to do so.