THIRD READING. (Hansard, 28 February 1879)

MR. COLE,
in moving the Adjournment of the Debate, said, that he should like to know the nature of the Amendments to be proposed. He had a strong objection to the Bill as it stood, and he opposed it on several grounds. It was supposed to be a great advantage to prisoners; but he certainly thought, in that respect, it was no advantage at all. "Under the Bill, which grouped several counties, it was impossible for prisoners to bring their witnesses to the place where they were to be tried. For instance, prisoners were brought from the Land's End to be tried at Exeter, the result being that persons not having large means were completely debarred from bringing their witnesses up to the Assizes. That, he thought, was a very great hardship; and, instead of assisting prisoners, he thought it the reverse. If prisoners were obliged to bring up their witnesses from the extreme ends of the counties, then the expense of so doing ought to be paid by the Government. He should wish to move the insertion of a clause that it should be in the power and discretion of the Judges to allow the expenses of those witnesses. That was not so in the Bill, expenses only being allowed in the case of witnesses bound over by the committing justices. Again, why were jurymen taken from one county to try all the prisoners for three counties? It was very hard upon the sheriff of the county to have to provide for the trial of prisoners from three counties, instead of those from his own particular county, and it was also very hard upon the grand jurors of the county in which the Assizes was held. Then, again, another extraordinary provision was, that the sheriff of the county in which the trial was held had to attend the hanging of prisoners capitally convicted coming from the counties grouped with his own county. That was the effect of 2049 the section, which was very plain. The section said— Notwithstanding anything in the Act of 1877 where judgment of death has been passed on any convict at any assize, the judgment may be carried into effect in any prison in which the convict was confined for safe custody prior to his removal for trial and that the sheriff of the county for which such assizes were held shall be charged with the execution of that judgment, and shall for that purpose have the same jurisdiction and powers, and he subject to the same duties in the prison in which the judgment is to be carried into execution, although such prison is not situate within his county, as he has by law with respect to the common gaol of his county, or would have had if the Prison Act, 1865, and the Prison Act, 1877, had not passed. Therefore, the result was perfectly clear that if a prisoner was sentenced to be executed he returned to the prison within which he was confined before he was tried, and the sheriff attending the Assize had to be present at the execution. [Mr. ASSHETON CROSS dissented.] The right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary shook his head; but he (Mr. Cole) thought it was clear, on a proper construction of the section, that the sheriff of the county in which the Assizes were held for the three or four counties comprised within the group must attend the hanging of every prisoner from any and all of those counties. It was so, indeed; and he therefore submitted that that section required very careful consideration and amendment. He undertook to say that no lawyer could read that 3rd section without coming to his conclusion.

§ MR. J. W. BARCLAY
seconded the Motion.

§ MR. MORGAN LLOYD
said, the subject was of very great importance, and one which ought to be fully discussed by the House. He thought, however, the present was not a convenient opportunity for doing so. There was a necessity for the passing of the Bill on account of the Assizes to be held in April next, which, though intended for the trial of prisoners only, would be held in every county, unless the Bill became law before that time. He hoped, therefore, the hon. and learned Member (Mr. Cole) would withdraw his Amendment and allow the Bill to pass. The Home Secre- 2050 tary had promised that the House should have an opportunity of discussing the general question on a future occasion, which would be much better than to attempt to discuss a question of so much complication and importance on the third reading of a Bill intended to remedy a temporary difficulty. He thought the subject was worthy of the consideration of the House. He believed that in many counties grand jurors had made representations against the plan of holding four Assizes a-year, many of them saying three times were sufficient, while some thought two Assizes were sufficient in many places. While expressing no opinion on this question, he thought the mind of the country was not made up on the subject, and that the House should, therefore, have the opportunity for discussing the question in all its bearings.

MR. ASSHETON CROSS
said, he quite agreed with the remarks which had fallen from the hon. and learned Member who had last spoken (Mr. Morgan Lloyd). He thought that the whole question as to the holding of the Assizes was one on which the judgment of the House should be deliberately asked at some future Sitting. The arrangement, which at that moment was almost concluded, and had received the sanction of the Judges, was that the Assizes were fixed for the 22nd April, and that arrangement being settled for this year, at all events, the only question was whether the Judges were to go to every single place, although there might be only one or two prisoners, or whether the system which had hitherto been carried out, of grouping one or two counties together, should be adopted. Therefore, it would not be possible to take the general discussion upon the matter at the present time, though he quite agreed with the Mover of the adjournment as to the desirability of discussion. The Bill would never have been brought forward unless it had been to endeavour by it to avoid a great waste of time and trouble to all the sheriffs and Judges, who, if the Bill were not passed, would have to go to every town and Assize country. That being so, he hoped the House would consent to the third reading of the Bill, in order that the Government might be allowed to obtain an Order in Council for the settlement of the Assize in April as proposed. The only Amendment of the Bill was a prac- 2051 tical one to insure the holding of two different Assizes in each separate county annually. The object of the 3rd clause was simply to provide for extreme cases. In some of the Welsh counties it was no longer thought necessary that there should be a gaol in each county capital—that was the general opinion of the Welsh counties. The sole object of the 3rd clause was to enable the sheriff of the county to which a condemned prisoner belonged, where there was no gaol, to attend the execution in the adjoining county where there was a gaol. Under the old system, the sheriff of the county to which the prisoner belonged, where there was no gaol, would not have had the right to attend the execution in the prison of an adjoining county under the new Prisons Act. The clause was simply intended to give the sheriff of the county to which the prisoner belonged the right of being present at the execution in whatever gaol to which the prisoner might be sent in default of there being a gaol in his own county. There was no intention, under the clause, to compel the attendance of the sheriffs of the county in which the Assizes were held at the execution of prisoners from foreign counties. If, however, on consideration it was found that the clause required any alteration the more clearly to express that view, he would see that some word should be inserted in the other House.

§ MR. HERSCHELL
said, with reference to the groupings of counties, the system of taking adjoining counties, and grouping them, would, no doubt, be convenient for some people; but in some cases it would be more advantageous for everybody—prisoners included—to group them, not simply because they were adjoining counties, but with a due regard to the facilities of communication between the various Assize towns and districts.

MR. ASSHETON CROSS
said, if he understood his hon. and learned Friend, his suggestion was that the groupings should be arranged on a basis of Bradshaw.

MR. COLE
said, that after the explanation of the right hon. Gentleman, he would withdraw his Motion for the adjournment of the debate.