§ MR. MACFARLANEasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, If his attention has been called to three sentences reported in the "Times" of the 27th instant, the first being the case of a man named Hunt, who was convicted of manslaughter for having, while intoxicated, killed his wife, and, having been told by the Chief Justice "that human life was a precious thing," was sentenced to six weeks' hard labour; the second being the case of a man named Lewis, who, being sober, killed a young woman with whom he lived, and was sentenced by the same judge to five years' penal servitude; the third being the case of a man named Banks, who, for stealing some India rubber cuttings, was sentenced by the Common Serjeant to twelve months' hard labour; and, if he will take into his consideration the inequality of these sentences?
§ SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTSir, the Question of the hon. Member seems to be founded on the idea that I am responsible for sentences. That responsibility is placed very wisely in the Judicial, and not in the Executive Department. The power of the Executive Department to interfere with sentences is very limited indeed. If a case is brought before time Secretary of State, and there is any good ground for reducing a sentence, that, after consultation with the Judge, is occasionally done. But the hon. Member suggests that I should review three sentences and bring them to a comparative equality. That I cannot do. In seine cases the sentences may be too light; but I have no power to aggravate a sentence. I ought to mention that I had an opportunity of conversing with the Lord Chief Justice on this subject yesterday; and he stated to me that the reason why, in one of 1881 these cases, the sentence might appear too light was that, in his opinion, the thing was as nearly as possible an accident, and he almost doubted whether there should be a conviction. The jury recommended the prisoner to mercy, and he thought it right to pass a light sentence.
§ MR. MACFARLANEgave Notice that on going into Committee of Supply he would move the following Resolution:—
That the administration of the law in cases of outrage upon the person has long been a reproach to our Criminal Courts. That outrages and assaults of the most brutal character, especially upon married women, even when they cause a cruel death, are commonly punished less severely than small offences against property. That the admission of the crime of drunkenness as an extenuation of other crimes is immoral, and acts as an incentive to persons about to commit outrages to wilfully deprive themselves of the guidance of reason.