HC Deb 26 March 1867 vol 186 cc567-8
CAPTAIN ARCHDALL

said, he rose to put a Question respecting a recent exercise of the Royal Prerogative of mercy. It appeared from the reports in the newspapers that a murder, accompanied by circumstances of more than usual barbarity and atrocity, had been perpetrated by a man named Edward Wager, and the announcement of the reprieve of the murderer was received with surprise and dissatisfaction; and he hoped that the right hon. Gentleman would by his reply allay those feelings in the public mind. ["Order, order!"] He would therefore beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, If he will state the reasons which induced him to advise Her Majesty to exercise the Royal Prerogative of mercy in favour of the murderer Edward Wager?

MR. WALPOLE

said, in reply, that the murder referred to by the hon. and gallant Gentleman was one of aggravated enormity and barbarity. When the case came before him he thought it his duty, as he had done in all other cases which had fallen under his consideration since he filled the office he now held (and he believed he so informed the House at the end of last Session), to apply as a test the unanimous recommendation of Her Majesty's Commissioners on the subject of capital punishment. That recommendation was that unless there was a premeditated and deliberate intention to kill—"malice aforethought" was, he believed, the expression in their Report—these cases in future should not be followed by the penalty of death. When he read the case now alluded to, his first impression was like that of the hon. and gallant Gentleman, that it was a case of such barbarity and cruelty that it was proper that the law should take its course. On the other hand, he found that the jury recommended the criminal to mercy. Moreover, he felt that in this, as in all similar cases, it was his duty to apply to the Judge who tried the criminal, and he did so without intimating any opinion one way or the other. The learned Judge had twice favoured him with his opinion, and he would read a portion of the report. It was as follows:— The murder was not premeditated, and I do not think that when he commenced the pursuit after his wife he intended that act of violence which he afterwards made use of. I am therefore of opinion that the case is not an unfit one for the exercise of the Prerogative of mercy. After the recommendation of the jury, expressed not only at the time when the verdict was given, but since conveyed to him in stronger language then the original recommendation was couched in, and after the deliberate opinion of the Judge that the case was, in his opinion, not unfit for the exercise of the Prerogative of mercy, he did not think that he could have taken any other course than the one he adopted, and the sentence was commuted to penal servitude for life.

MR. DARBY GRIFFITH

said, he would beg to ask, whether the right hon. Gentleman adopted it as a principle that he should give effect to the recommendation of the Royal Commissioners before legislation had taken place on the subject?

MR. WALPOLE

said, that the hon. Member had better give notice of his Question.