§ SIR GEORGE JENKINSONrose, pursuant to Notice, "to call attention to the case of the convict, Jacob Spinasa, who was sentenced to death at the March Sessions of the Central Criminal Court for the wilful murder of a woman, and who has lately received a reprieve and a commutation of his sentence." He found, by the report of the trial published in The Times, that there was no recommendation to mercy; that Baron Channell, the Judge who tried the case, expressed his entire concurrence in the verdict; that the learned Judge said the jury, by their verdict, had negatived the supposition of the prisoner having been in such 2099 a state of mind as to be irresponsible for his actions; and that he (Baron Channell) observed he was glad the jury had had "the courage" to consider the case in all its bearings. After all that, the case came before the Secretary of State for the Home Department in private, and he advised a commutation of the sentence. He believed that fresh evidence had been brought under the notice of the right hon. Gentleman; but that was the very point to which he wished to call the attention of the House. He objected to the practice of producing fresh evidence for the consideration of the Secretary of State after a trial in Court. When evidence was held back at the trial and produced afterwards to the Secretary of State, without being submitted to the test of cross-examination, he thought that it ought to be viewed with doubt and suspicion. He begged to be understood as not saying anything against the right hon. Gentleman personally, who, he was sure, had acted in this case in accordance with what he considered to be his public duty; but if sentences in such cases were to be set aside by one man sitting in a private room, the confidence of the public in the course of justice would be shaken. He did not say that the system was badly administered, but that the system itself was bad. His objection was against the Secretary of State, whoever he might be, sitting as a Court of Appeal. In reference to a somewhat similar case with respect to which he asked a Question last year, he wished to mention that Mr. Justice Mellor, the Judge who tried that case, had expressed his thanks to him for having asked the Question, because it afforded him (the learned Judge) the only opportunity he could have of correcting any misapprehension in the minds of the public as to the propriety of any sentences passed; and he had received a number of communications in which the writers stated their approval of the course he had taken. The particulars of the ease of Spinasa were known to the House and the public, and therefore, declaring once more that he introduced the subject because he thought the system of an appeal to the Secretary of State a bad one, and hoping that the law would be altered, he left the matter in the hands of the right hon. Gentleman and the House.
§ MR. R. N. FOWLERsaid, the House 2100 would remember that last year a Bill was introduced by his hon. Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Gilpin) to abolish capital punishment, and he (Mr. R. N. Fowler) stated, in the debate upon the second reading of that Bill, that though he believed that the powers vested by the present system in the Secretary of State for the Home Department were exercised as satisfactorily as possible by the right hon. Gentleman who at present presided over the Homo Office, yet they were powers which it was perfectly impossible for any man to exercise to the general satisfaction of the public. There could be no doubt that different minds took different views, and it was quite possible that two men of equal ability and fairness, and with an equal desire to do justice to the case before them, might arrive on the same evidence at very different conclusions. Formerly when a Judge left a man for execution, not having received from the jury any recommendation to mercy, the idea was that the convict was sure to be executed; but of late years public opinion had moved considerably in the direction of mitigating sentences of capital punishment, and whenever a man was sentenced to death now-a-days, the Home Office was always besieged with memorials to spare the life of the culprit. He himself had never signed any such memorials, and he should be most unwilling to do so; because he thought that under the present state of the law the Secretary of State ought to be left to exercise the powers intrusted to him on his own responsibility, guided, as a man holding such a post always would be, by the importance of the decision at which he would have to arrive. But it was impossible that the decision of the Home Office could give general satisfaction, because while the trial in Court was an open one, the grounds upon which the Secretary of State arrived at his decision were secret. The Secretary of State frequently had facts put before him which were not before the public, and consequently the public were often puzzled to understand why he spared one criminal and hung another. The whole subject, however, was ably debated on the second reading of the Bill he had referred to, and the Bill was rejected by a majority of 2 to 1, which he took to be a decision of the House to abide by the present system. He hoped to see 2101 the day when capital punishment would cease in this country; but he thought that that time was not likely to arrive during the existence of the present House of Commons. After the House had decided to leave these questions in the hands of the Secretary of State, he thought it would be better if the time of the House were not taken up by discussions on particular cases like the one now before them. Such cases ought to be left entirely in the hands of the right hon. Gentleman opposite. This House was, in the nature of things, one of the worst places where the question of the comparative guilt of a murderer could be properly considered, for it was a legislative Assembly and not an executive body.
MR. GILPINsaid, he concurred in thinking that it was not desirable that the time of the House should be taken up in the discussion of individual cases which had or had not received the clemency of the Crown. He did not see, however, how it was possible for the hon. Baronet who had brought this question forward to limit himself to this particular case, for not merely the act of the Home Secretary but the Prerogative of the Crown was called in question. The Crown had the indefeasible right of mercy, and according to the Constitution of the country that right was exercised through responsible advisers; and to deprive the Sovereign of that power would be to rob the British Crown of one of its brightest jewels. The hon. Baronet had treated this case as if the Secretary of State had seen right on his own responsibility to set aside or alter the decision of a Judge. For many years he (Mr. Gilpin) had been in the habit of going to the Home Office to ask for a remission of the death penalty in cases where he had reason to believe that special circumstances existed which might fairly be brought under the consideration of the Crown; but he had never known reprieves to be granted by the Home Secretary without the fullest consideration and investigation, and unless new facts had been elicited which would have altered, if not the verdict of the jury, at least the sentence of the Judge. As a rule, too, the Home Secretary acted on the advice of the Judge. Within the last three years there had been a case in which a man was left under sentence of death in the con- 2102 demned cell, and the Judge had declared that he was fully convinced of the justice of the verdict; and yet ultimately, within a few days of his sentence being executed, the man was set free, with the most perfect concurrence of opinion on the part of Judge, and Home Secretary, that he was quite innocent of the charge against him. What would be the feeling of the country, if in such a case as that a man was hanged because there was no power of mercy such as that which was now vested in the Home Secretary? It was right that there should be in those cases a power vested in the Crown, and he believed that power, whether placed in the hands of the present Secretary of State for the Home Department, or of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Oxford (Mr. Gathorne Hardy), would be exercised with equal conscientiousness. As to the instance under the notice of the House, he might state that one of the counsel engaged in the case had called upon him, and had told him that he was perfectly satisfied it was not one of wilful murder; and there were also Gentlemen in that House who had seen the convict, and whose opinion was that there was no malice aforethought. He would, therefore, appeal to the justice and kindness of the hon. Baronet who had brought the question forward (Sir George Jenkinson) to say whether, when fresh evidence was laid before him, it would not be monstrous to interpose between the Secretary for the Home Department and the exercise of the prerogative of mercy. If, he might add, that had the recommendations which had been unanimously agreed to by the Commissioners on Capital Punishment been acted upon, Jacob Spinasa could not have been executed; and he would, therefore, urge upon his right hon. Friend the Home Secretary not to allow any more time than was absolutely necessary to elapse before he introduced a Bill founded on the Report of that Commission. The result of the passing of such a measure would, he felt convinced, be not more to lessen the number of executions than to increase the certainty of convictions. There was a moral in those cases which could scarcely fail to present itself to one after another of the holders of the Office which the right hon. Gentleman filled, and that was that it was neither right nor 2103 wise that an irrevocable and irreversible punishment should be inflicted by fallible and erring men. Having always been an advocate for the abolition of capital punishment, he was more hopeful than the hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. R. N. Fowler), that he should see its abolition during the existence of the present Parliament. It would not be the first instance of a majority, on an important question at the commencement of a Parliament, becoming through discussion, and the progress of conviction, a minority before its dissolution.
MR. SCOURFIELDsaid, he thought there was great inconvenience in raising the questions of the expediency of appointing a public prosecutor and abolishing capital punishment, in dealing with an isolated case such as that under discussion. His own experience for many years as chairman of quarter sessions led him to form a very favourable opinion as to the mode in which business was transacted at the Home Office; but as to its giving perfect satisfaction, he must remind the House that the days of perfect satisfaction were gone. He had read, in a very able letter which appeared in The Times not long since, that "civilization had enlarged the bounds of criticism," and the observation was, he believed, perfectly just. Those who complained of the present system ought to have some distinct idea of what was to be substituted for it, and until some well-defined plan was devised it was not wise, in his opinion, to do anything which might tend to impair the authority and efficacy of that system.
§ MR. WHALLEYsaid, he believed he was one of those who had laid themselves open to the charge of impertinence in interfering with this case; but he had felt it to be his duty to act as he had acted. If Spinasa had been executed it would have been a grievous outrage on public justice, and a deliberate murder in the name of justice. The man had acted in a fit of passion and mania; and if he had been hanged it would have been in defiance of the unanimous recommendation of the Royal Commission, for there was no deliberate malice aforethought. After the reprieve he visited the man, and toot great interest in his case. He had made it his business to inquire into the antecedents of this man, and to obtain the opinion of persons conversant with the particular malady to 2104 which he had been subject. The malady was one well known to medical men as "homicidal mania." This man, in his youth, had been subject to these fits, and on three occasions he had been restrained from committing suicide, and injuring himself and others at times when he was entirely irresponsible for his actions. The account which the man gave of himself had been corroborated by the medical men. Police magistrates and others stated that at the least one-half of the charges of murder ended in acquittal, and the return to society of persons who were probably guilty of the crime. This was one effect of capital punishment, for juries were reluctant to pronounce a verdict of guilty. He believed that the hon. Baronet (Sir George Jenkinson) was entitled to the thanks of the House for having brought this matter forward; he was also of opinion that the Secretary of State for the Home Department had in this case exercised his powers in a satisfactory manner.
MR. BRUCESir, I am not going to allow myself to be led by the present discussion into any argument either as to the punishment of death or the mode in which justice is administered in this country. While the law respecting murder remains as it is, and while the spectacle is so often seen of Judges and juries dissenting—the one from the verdict and the other from the sentence which, in accordance with law, they are obliged to pass—there must be lodged somewhere the power of administering the prerogative of mercy. No person will be a greater benefactor to the public than he who successfully deals with this subject, so as enable justice to be administered with more entire satisfaction than it is at present, for the office of Secretary of State for the Home Department, with whatever care, wisdom, and prudence it may be administered by any individual, must be always exposed to a great deal of criticism. The circumstances which influence his decisions are very frequently unknown to, or, as in the present instance, vaguely surmised by the public. In some instances I have seen them approved or disapproved for reasons altogether apart from the truth; and, as long as there exists no means of imparting to the public the reasons on which the ultimate decision is arrived at, this must continue to be the case. Attempts have been often made, though 2105 not always successfully, to improve the administration of criminal justice; but I hold that we must always retain the prerogative of mercy, although we may limit as far as possible the number of cases in which it shall be exercised. Before I come to the case of Jacob Spinasa, let me notice one or two remarks which fell from the hon. Baronet (Sir George Jenkinson). I am sorry he should regard as harsh anything which fell from me as to the line of conduct he pursued, but I think the House will be of opinion that I was right when I objected to the course of procedure he adopted when he called upon me to state, by way of answer to a Question, my reasons for advising that the prerogative of mercy should be exercised in certain cases. The hon. Baronet had on one occasion, during last Session, asked me to give my reasons for remitting sentences in as many as 11 cases, and on the last occasion his Question referred not simply to this man Spinasa, but to two other cases. Now I have never before known a Question to be put to a Home Secretary, involving even the case of a single prisoner. Formerly, whenever such a subject was submitted to the notice of the House, it was brought forward under a sense of great responsibility on the part of the person who challenged the decision of the Home Secretary—he brought forward the case in all its details, showed that principles of great importance were at stake, and gave the Minister the amplest opportunity of vindicating his conduct. But the manner in which the hon. Baronet brought forward this Question was altogether different. For aught I know, he may have put into the form of a Question something he had seen in the newspapers the day before. He may have taken no pains whatever to master the subject. At all events, that is consistent with a great deal of what one sees going on every day in this House. The other mode, however, is one which secures that care on the part of the questioner which the hon. Baronet has probably not bestowed on the case now under consideration. Then, he says that one man sitting in a private room overrules the decision of a Judge and jury; but does the hon. Baronet think that a decision has ever been overruled without the most careful and intimate communication with the Judge? For myself, I 2106 may say that in no single case have I ever overruled the decision of a Judge without the fullest approbation on the part of the Judge himself. In two of the three cases to which the hon. Baronet's last Question referred, the decisions were overruled at the specific request of the Judges themselves, before any other representation had been made to the Home Office. In the present case the facts are not exactly the same, for I was besieged with Petitions. These Petitions, I may remark, are very closely scrutinized, and are only sent to the Judge for his report if it is found that they contain real and substantial reasons why the sentence should be remitted. In the present case it appeared to me that there were substantial reasons for consideration set forth in the several Petitions which were sent to me. I accordingly referred them to the consideration of the learned Judge who presided at the trial, and I received from him a most clear and elaborate answer, to the effect that the evidence adduced at the trial, and the facts set forth in the Memorial afforded no sufficient grounds for disturbing the verdict of the jury. I should have acted on that opinion had not new facts of a most important character subsequently come in. Those who have read the reports of the case must have noticed that it was altogether a mysterious one. A murder was committed, for which no motive could be assigned, by a person who was apparently labouring under some temporary and violent hallucination. The Judge and jury, however, thought there was not sufficient evidence of this state of mind, and therefore they treated the prisoner as a man who had committed a murder, with a full knowledge of what he was doing. After the trial evidence was given upon oath in Switzerland by a surgeon who had repeatedly attended Spinasa while he was in a militia regiment, and who had seen him in a state of hallucination similar to that described at the trial, and accompanied by acts of violence, of which he was unconscious. Then it was proved that persons in a German hospital in London had seen him under similar circumstances. Well, I sent this evidence to the learned Judge, and his answer was that if these facts had been presented to the jury, they would probably have induced them to take a different view of the subject; but even then, in- 2107 stead of acting entirely on the opinion of the learned Judge, I sent the whole of the papers to my noble Friend the Lord Chancellor, although this is not a course I usually adopt. The Lord Chancellor was kind enough to consider the case, and he concurred with me in thinking that, after the statement which had been made by the learned Judge, it would be impossible to inflict the sentence of death. I am aware it may be objected that these witnesses were not subject to cross-examination. Now that is perfectly true, but I beg of hon. Members to look at the other side of the case, which presents itself to me often and very strongly. Attempts are often made to induce me to remit the punishment in cases where evidence has been held back, in order that it may afterwards be alleged that if the witnesses had been heard the result of the trial would have been very different. I pay no sort of attention to allegations of that description; but the case of Spinasa, a poor man and a foreigner, who could not provide properly for his defence, was of an entirely different kind. In such a case it is impossible to avoid giving weight to evidence adduced after the trial. I may here mention another case which was brought under my notice more recently. A prisoner was entirely undefended, not a palliative circumstance was adduced on his trial for murder, and he was consequently convicted and sentenced to death; but other evidence was afterwards brought forward which, in the opinion of the Judge, would, if laid before the jury, have turned the scale in favour of the prisoner and shown that he was guilty of manslaughter instead of murder. Cases of this kind are very frequent in consequence of the imperfection of our system. A poor ignorant man cannot bring forward the evidence necessary to do him justice. It is only when public sympathy has been aroused that all the facts are brought to the knowledge of the Home Secretary, who, with the assistance of the Judge, performs his duty to the best of his ability. As the hon. Member for Falmouth (Mr. E. N. Fowler) says, different Home Secretaries take very different views of cases that are similar in circumstances. That I admit, but may not the same thing be said of Judges and juries? I would appeal from the opinion of the hon. Baronet to those learned Judges who have 2108 experience of the last 30 or 40 years, as to whether they were satisfied with the manner in which the Home Secretaries had discharged their duty. I believe the general opinion is, as was stated by the hon. Member for Pembrokeshire (Mr. Scourfield), that the decisions come to in the Home Office are, on the whole, sound, righteous, and satisfactory. In this particular case I think, after the statement I have made, the House will see I could come to no other conclusion than I did.
§ SIR JOHN PAKINGTONsaid, he must express satisfaction at the judicious and temperate speech of the Secretary of State for the Home Department; but he trusted his right hon. Friend would permit him to say he was a little hard upon the hon. Member for North Wiltshire (Sir George Jenkinson) when referring to what he did last year, when dealing with cases which at that time were exciting considerable attention. His right hon. Friend had not then been long at the Home Office; very little was known of his mode of dealing with such cases, and fears were entertained that mercy had been injudiciously exercised; but the explanation given at that time entirely removed that impression from his mind, and probably from the mind of the public at large. He thought the Home Secretary would have been justified in requiring that if any hon. Member desired to question the propriety of any exercise of the prerogative of mercy it should be done after fair notice, and in such a way as to enable him to make full inquiries, and come before the House prepared to go fully into the case, and it would have been better if the right hon. Gentleman had contented himself with making that request. The explanation given in the particular case referred to showed that the Home Secretary had acted with the utmost care; nor could he have come to any other conclusion than that he had. It was, however, much to be regretted in cases of an aggravated nature, when the commission of a shocking crime had been followed by a sentence without any recommendation to mercy, that the sentence should be commuted on the ground of evidence unknown to the Judge, not given upon oath, and not subject to the test of cross-examination. He did not say that cases might not arise which would justify a commuta- 2109 tion of sentence upon such grounds; he desired merely to observe that the more seldom sentences were set aside under such circumstances the better for the ends of justice. He was not one of those who desired to put an end to capital punishment; he would go further, and say, that in such a case as the recent horrible attempt to assassinate a magistrate in Ireland, prevented from being actual murder only by the interposition of Providence, the sin of the criminal was the same as if his victim had fallen by his hand. No distinction should be drawn between actual murder and such a case, and he was sorry that the law had been so relaxed as to permit of a distinction. Still, although he did not desire; to separate the punishment of death from murder, it was necessary that the evidence in every case should be conclusive and satisfactory, and he was bound to confess that in this case the explanation afforded by his right hon. Friend threw doubts upon the justice of the sentence. Among all the duties which devolved upon Ministers of the Crown none required such careful and anxious thought as the one which the Home Secretary had to discharge in dealing with the prerogative of mercy. His conduct in exercising that prerogative, however, should be open to the fullest review by the House, and nobody would be more the gainer than the Home Secretary himself.