§ MR. BRIGHTrose for the purpose of putting a question to the right hon. Baronet the Home Secretary, and he did so with great reluctance, as the question was one which he felt must be productive of pain to the right hon. Gentleman. Two men were at present under sentence of death, in the county gaol of Durham, for a murder committed on a gamekeeper of the Duke of Cleveland. He perceived by the public papers that a respite had been sent down from the Home Office for one of these unhappy individuals; and he understood also that the town-council of Durham, and also the jury before whom the case was tried, had forwarded a memorial to the Home Office for respite or commutation of punishment in the case of both the prisoners. When the subject of the abolition of the punishment of death had been recently before the House, a feeling seemed to prevail in favour of the system existing in France of giving in verdicts under extenuating circumstances, the custom being, under such verdicts, never to enforce the extreme penalty of the law. Now, he did not mean that the case of these men differed in point of guilt from many others in which the extreme penalty of the law was enforced; but what he thought was, that a circular which had been signed by the jury was to be regarded in the light of a recommendation to mercy, and that it ought to be treated as such. The question which he wished to ask the right hon. Baronet was, whether he had any objection to state if such a memorial from the jury had been received by him; and also whether he had any objection to place a copy of it on the 967 table? He asked the question, because he-had received communications on the subject from many persons in Durham, whose views were well worthy of attention, and also because he believed that a very strong feeling existed in that part of the country with respect to the present state of the law.
§ SIR GEORGE GREYsaid, that no matter how proper the hon. Gentleman's motives might have been in bringing forward such a subject, he could not help expressing in the strongest terms his deep regret that questions of the kind should be asked in that House on matters the whole circumstances connected with which it Was quite impossible could be fully laid before the House. He had doubts whether such a course of proceeding did not tend very much to impede the Executive in the proper discharge of the painful duty which devolved upon them. With regard to the present case, in which the sentence had been finally signed, he could only say that it had received the most careful consideration from him; and, painful as the decision to which he had been forced was, he did not feel himself at liberty to shrink from it by the anticipation of any comments that might be made upon his acts in that House or elsewhere. He would only say, that the verdict of the jury had not been accompanied by any recommendation to mercy. He had subsequently, however, received from the neighbourhood many applications for a commutation of sentence, and among others a memorial to that effect, signed by the jury by whom the case had been heard. He did not feel it to be advisable to lay that memorial before the House, as, if he did so, it would be necessary to accompany it with all the counter statements and communications which he had felt it his duty to call for in order to enable him to come to a decision on the subject. He thought that such a mode of proceeding would be subversive of the constitutional practice followed in such cases.