§ Sir C. Knightley moved for copies of any correspondence which may have passed between the Secretary of State for the Home Department and the chairman of the quarter sessions for the county of Northampton relative to the liberation of William Smith, who was convicted of destroying his father's will, and sentenced to transportation for seven years. He brought forward this motion as he considered that the Secretary for the Home Department had not acted with propriety in this case, for he commuted the sentence of transportation, which had been passed on this convict for destroying his father's will, by which his nephew would have lost considerable property, into the term of imprisonment for three months in the Penitentiary, at Milbank. This had been done without making any communication to the chairman of the quarter sessions at Northampton, who tried this person. He thought that by this proceeding a great insult had been offered to the magistracy of the county of Northampton, and that 375 the Secretary of the Home Department had been guilty of a gross abuse of the prerogative of the crown.
§ Lord John Russellsaid, that the motion of the hon. Baronet was of a most unusual nature, and he trusted that the House would not accede to it. The reasons why the punishment of this convict was commuted were shortly these:—A memorial was sent to him by Dr. Watson, who stated himself to be the clergyman of the parish where the convict lived, and it was signed by that gentleman and several other respectable persons in the parish. It stated that the man had undoubtedly been guilty of destroying his father's will, but it had been done under feelings of great excitement on his part, and that he appeared sincerely to repent what he had been guilty of; and it also added that he was in such a bad state of health, that the carrying the sentence into effect would most probably occasion his death. This petition came under the consideration of the Under-Secretary for the Home Department who recommended that the convict should be pardoned. He (Lord John Russell), however, under all the circumstances of the case, thought it advisable that the sentence should be commuted in the way in which it had been, namely, after the man had been imprisoned three months in the Penitentiary. If he had entertained any doubt as to the guilt of the man he should have sent to the chairman of the quarter-sessions in Northamptonshire; but in cases where there was no doubt of the guilt of the party, and where reasons might appear to arise for the remission of any portion of the punishment, it was not usual to make application to the judge who tried the prisoner. Hundreds of cases of the kind had occurred at the Home-office in which no application had been made to the judge. Above all, in cases where the putting the sentence in force was likely to be attended with danger to the life of the prisoner, the judge was not questioned on the subject. The hon. Baronet, however, seemed to think that the prerogative of mercy was in the chairman of the quarter sessions, and not in the Crown. He did not believe that any instance had ever occurred of calling for papers of this kind under such circumstances and should certainly oppose the introduction of such a precedent.
§ Motion negatived.