§ SIR R. ASSHETON CROSSasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether the statement, apparently semi-official, which appeared in the papers this morning as to a respite of the convict Lamson is true; and, if so, whether the right hon. and learned Gentleman would be good enough to state the reasons which induced him to grant the respite?
§ SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTSir, I am much obliged to the right hon. Gen- 552 tleman for giving me an opportunity of making a statement on the subject. I received through the Foreign Office a letter from the Minister of the United States, dated the 31st of March, stating that it was the personal request of the President of the United States that the execution of Lamson should be suspended until certain evidence which had been collected and transmitted to the Attorney General of the United States should be forwarded for my consideration. In my opinion, it is the duty of the Secretary of State in such a case carefully to consider anything that may be adduced by any trustworthy authority from whatever quarter it may come, not with a view to revising the sentence or verdict, the responsibility for which rests solely with the Judge and jury, but in order to determine whether there are any grounds for recommending the exercise of the Prerogative of mercy by the Crown. When there has been any reliable evidence to that effect it has been the practice of the Secretary of State to order a respite until that evidence was duly examined. In the case of Mansell, in 1857, four successive respites, extending over a period of six months, were granted by Sir George Grey, at the end of which time the prisoner was executed. In the case of Michael Barrett, two successive respites were granted by Mr. Gathorne Hardy before the execution, in order that further inquiry might be made as to the facts. Acting, therefore, upon the principle of the precedents established in this grave matter—precedents which apply to evidence whether proceeding from abroad or obtained in this country—I have acceded to the request and directed a respite for a fortnight, until the 18th of April. This case has been and will be dealt with exactly as if a similar representation had been made upon reliable authority in England. In my opinion, it is a sound principle, which ought not to be departed from, that before the capital sentence is carried into execution all the evidence advanced subsequent to the trial should be duly considered. But the prisoner has been fully warned that the respite in these circumstances carries with it no implied presumption of a reprieve or commutation of the sentence. I will also, with the leave of the House, answer now the Question which the hon. Baronet (Sir Eardly Wilmot) gave Notice that he 553 would put to-morrow. I have not received the document to which he refers; but in any case to lay on the Table Papers with respect to the exercise of mercy by the Crown would make it absolutely impossible that that Prerogative should be exercised.