COMMITTEE. (Hansard, 23 August 1881)

§ MR. R. N. FOWLER
said, he wished to put a question to the hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill. As he read the sub-section of this clause, it appeared to him that some difficulty might be occasioned under it. At the last sitting of the Central Criminal Court, two per- 763 sons were convicted of murder. One of them was in charge of the Sheriff of Middlesex, who appointed last Monday morning for the execution; but, fortunately, the man was reprieved by the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Home Secretary; but the other prisoner, who was also convicted, was sent back to Maidstone, and he had not heard what the decision of the right hon. and learned Gentleman was in that case. But, as he read the clause, these two criminals would have been both left for execution, and it would have been the duty of the Sheriffs of London to have arranged for the execution of one of them; while it would have been the duty of the High Sheriff of Kent to have arranged for the execution of the other. He wanted to know whether this interpretation of the clause was correct, and whether, if that was so, it was convenient in such a case to have two criminals left for execution in regard to whom the arrangements would have to be carried out by two separate and distinct authorities?

§ MR. COURTNEY
wished to point out to the hon. Member that the contingency he had supposed of the execution of two criminals being left in the hands of two sheriffs could only arise in the absence of an order being made. It was required that the judgment of the Court should be carried into execution in any prison as the Judge who tried the case might direct, and any sheriff might be ordered by the Judge to see that the sentence was duly carried out. Therefore, unless an order was made in regard to the execution, the sheriffs of the district in which the prison was situated would carry out the sentence. He took it for granted that the necessary order would be made at the time of the trial. No doubt, if no order was made, some inconvenience might arise; but the truth of the matter was that the Sheriffs of London were frequently called upon to carry out the sentences in the case of criminals who were brought from outlying counties, and no difficulty whatever could arise except in the absence of an order.

§ MR. R. N. FOWLER
said, he was glad to receive the explanation of the hon. Gentleman. It had always been customary, whenever a criminal did not belong to the county of Middlesex, that 764 the duty of taking measures for carrying the sentence into effect should emanate from the authority of the district from which the prisoner came. He had not raised the question from any personal motive. He was thankful to say that his year of office was nearly at an end, and it was not likely that he would have anything to do with any other execution; but he was anxious, in the interest of his successors, that this painful duty should not be thrown upon the sheriffs any more than was absolutely necessary.