QUESTION. (Hansard, 16 August 1867)

§ MAJOR ANSON
rose to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department a, Question with regard to the sentence passed on a man named Cuncanon at the last Stafford Assizes. The hon. and gallant Member said, that a man named Martin Cuncanon was arrested at Lichfield a short time ago on the charge of having murdered his brother-in-law. It appeared that the two men had been out drinking, and had come home late at night in a state of intoxication. Cuncanon knocked down his brother-in-law, and left the house; the brother-in-law followed him, and shortly afterwards came back stabbed in the belly. Cuncanon was committed to the assizes on a charge of wilful murder, and the Grand Jury found a true bill against him for manslaughter. After a short trial, at which there was apparently no evidence to show that the death of the brother-in-law was an accident, Mr. Justice Shee, the presiding Judge, summed up in a very few words, and was reported to have directed the jury to the effect that it was quite clear that in a moment of excitement and slight anger the prisoner had stabbed his brother-in-law. The Judge, in sentencing the prisoner, 1629 said that if in a moment of anger the prisoner had struck his brother-in-law a blow, and death had resulted from it, he would have inflicted but a slight punishment; and considering the good character the prisoner had received, he felt justified in not pronouncing any very severe sentence; but still the prisoner had used a knife, and should be made an example of, and then, "to the astonishment of a crowded court," the learned Judge sentenced the prisoner to four months' imprisonment. That sentence had created a great deal of excitement in the district, and he (Major Anson) had been requested to ask the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for the Home Department, Whether the case had been brought under his notice, or whether he was aware of any facts which justified the Judge in passing so lenient a sentence?

§ MR. GATHORNE HARDY
said, that the case to which the hon. and gallant Member referred had not been in any way brought before him officially. Criminal cases only came under the notice of the Secretary of State upon an application for a remission or mitigation of sentence through the interposition of the mercy of the Crown, and were never submitted to his consideration on the ground that the sentence was too lenient. There might be complaints addressed to him with respect to the conduct of magistrates, but the action of the Judges did not come within his jurisdiction, and could only be reviewed by Parliament. The present case had not been brought before him, and he could not have formed any opinion upon it without having examined the Judge's notes of the trial. He had not, however, seen those notes, and he had no right to interfere in any way in the matter.

§ MR. NEATE
asked the right hon. Gentleman, whether there was not a Royal Commission of gaol delivery for every assize, and whether the Crown, in the exercise of its prerogative, might not omit from that Commission the name of any Judge who had forfeited its confidence?

§ MR. GATHORNE HARDY
said, he assumed that Her Majesty would only make out Her Commission to such persons as she might think would properly discharge the duties imposed upon them.