§ SIR HENRY WILLOUGHBYsaid, he wished to inquire, Whether the man Clark, who has been sentenced to death for the murder of Mr. Frater, an Income Tax Collector at Newcastle, has been respited; and whether there is any reason for supposing that the unfortunate man has been and is undoubtedly insane?
§ SIR GEORGE GREYSir, the sentence in the case has not been commuted, but the execution of it has been respited wholly on the grounds of the alleged insanity of the prisoner. The facts are these:—Immediately after the trial the Judge wrote to me to say that he felt it his duty to take the first opportunity of bringing under my attention the peculiar circumstances of the case. He agreed with the verdict of the jury, because there was no evidence that at the time of the commission of the crime the prisoner was insane; but his conduct at the trial was of the most eccentric and extraordinary character; and it was the opinion of the medical officer of the prison, who was stated to be a man of great experience, that the prisoner was insane. This, as the learned Judge truly observes, is a circumstance of immense importance as to whether the sentence he had felt it his duty to pass should be carried into effect or not. Before I took any steps founded on that view I directed the Medical Inspector of Prisons to go to Newcastle, see the prisoner, and form his own opinion. This gentleman had several interviews with the prisoner, sometimes by himself, sometimes in conjunction with the Governor and Chaplain of the prison, and he reported his opinion to me in the most decided terms that the prisoner was insane; and in that opinion the authorities of the prison concurred. I therefore respited the execution of the sentence, and wrote to the visiting justices to request that they would take the necessary steps for having the prisoner committed to an asylum. I received an answer to that communication, and a certificate signed by two physicians in Newcastle, testifying in express terms to the insanity of the prisoner; so that there were altogether four medical men who concurred in that opinion. But the visiting justices declined to concur in the opinion; consequently the requirements of the law were not satisfied, which alone would authorize the Secretary of State to 1594 direct the removal of the prisoner to an asylum. I have, therefore, written to the visiting justices, calling their attention to all the circumstances of the case, pointing out the difficulty which arises from their refusal. No doubt they were influenced in what they did by the conviction of their own minds, but I have directed their attention to the duty which has devolved upon them of taking care that the prisoner is placed in such a position that he can do no injury to himself or others.