§ SIR GEORGE JENKINSONsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, If he will state, for the information of this House, the grounds upon which he has, within the last week, as stated in the public papers, recommended the reprieve of three convicts sentenced to death, for murder, and the commutation of such sentences: First case, William Cunningham, who was lately sentenced to death by Lord Justice Clerk for the murder of a woman at Glasgow; second case, Susannah Hyde, who was lately sentenced to death for the wilful murder of her in- 421 fant child at Tetsworth; third case, Jacob Spinasa, who was convicted at the last Session of the Central Criminal Court, and sentenced to death for the wilful murder of Cecilia Aldridge?
MR. BRUCESir, before replying to the Question of the hon. Baronet, I desire, with the permission of the House, to address to him a few words of expostulation. I have been a Member of this House for eighteen years, and during the whole of that time I cannot recall to my recollection, nor have I been able to discover, any single instance, except in the example set by the hon. Baronet during last Session, of a Home Secretary being called upon to justify the manner in which he has performed his duties with respect to the commutation of capital sentences in the form of Question and Answer, as is now proposed. Undoubtedly it is the right of this House to question the discretion with which the Home Secretary discharges his duties, and that right has been repeatedly exercised. Many Members can recollect the discussions in reference to the commutation of the sentences passed upon Wright and Townley, and in the Scotch case of Jessie M'Lachlan, and my hon. Friend the Member for North Warwickshire questioned the propriety of the decision of my right hon. Friend opposite (Mr. Gathorne Hardy) in the case of James Scott, and of my own decision in the case of Michael Atkins. Upon all these occasions, however, a Notice was given, a Motion was made, and the Minister whose conduct was impugned had the fullest opportunity of defending the course he had taken, and of explaining to the House the views on which he I acted. Well, Sir, during all this time I have no doubt hon. Members have felt quite as much interested as the hon. Baronet with respect to the reasons which have actuated the Home Secretary; but they have not chosen to adopt the same method of satisfying their curiosity as he has done. And why have they not adopted that method? Because, considering the gravity of the subject, they felt the impropriety and unfairness of such conduct. They further felt that such conduct would be unjust towards the Minister himself and prejudicial to the cause of justice. Having said this, I will not shrink from giving, though very shortly, my reasons. ["No, no!"] Well, if that is the opinion of the House 422 I will not answer the Question, and I confess I am thankful to the House in having supported me in my resistance to it.