HC Deb 12 April 1889 vol 335 cc422-36
*SIR E. LECHMERE (Worcestershire, Bewdley)

I beg to move— That, in the opinion of this House, such persons who may from time to time be employed, in pursuance of justice, in carrying into effect the extreme penalty of the law by hanging should be placed under the direct control of the Home Office. I desire to draw the attention of the House to a very great scandal, and to suggest an easy method by which I think it might be put an end to. I may say that I am perfectly indifferent as to the term which may be used in describing the person who carries out the extreme penalty of the law. I do not care whether he is called an executioner or a hangman. What I contend for is that, as long as capital punishment by hanging is the law of this country, those who administer the law should be under the obligation of selecting and appointing proper persons to carry out the punishment so as to prevent the repetition of such scandals as have taken place. I think that the conduct of the person or persons who may be appointed should be under the immediate control of some official of the State, and I conclude that the Department of the State which is most fit to exercise that control is the Home Office. I have no intention of suggesting any interference with the ancient office of High Sheriff, part of whose duty it is to superintend executions. It may naturally he asked what is the present position of the common hangman. The present hangman, Berry, has not been selected or appointed by anybody. Calcraft, Mar-wood, and others of his predecessors were appointed by the Court of Aldermen of the Corporation of London with a view of their carrying out executions at the Old Bailey. When executions had to be carried out in the provinces, Sheriffs found it convenient from time to time to write to the authorities at Newgate in order to obtain the services of the hangman. The executioner appointed by the Court of Aldermen received a retainer of £20 a-year, with an addition of £10 for each execution; the object of the retainer being to secure the first claim upon him whenever his services might be required. In the case of the present hangman, however, there has been no appointment whatever. He seems somehow to have slipped into the office after the dismissal of a man who was discharged for gross misconduct and drunkenness. It is a remarkable thing that there are no rules and no conditions laid down anywhere for the guidance of the executioner in the carrying out of his duties, with the single exception that, by the rules of the Home Office, he is bound to sleep within the precincts of the goal on the night preceding the execution. To show that this rule is by no means sufficient to ensure propriety of conduct on the part of the executioner, I may mention some circumstances connected with the present executioner that are already known to the House, as I have already put questions to the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary (Mr. Matthews) with regard to them. In May, last year, Berry had to hang two men at Hereford. On the night preceding the execution he went down to Hereford and was fêted at a smoking concert in one of the hotels, he himself being a performer. I put a question to the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary (Mr. Matthews) on this subject, and his reply was that the executioner was appointed by the Sheriff, and neither the Home Secretary nor the Prison Commissioners had any control over him. After hanging the men at Hereford, he went to Worcester, where there was the same sort of fêting at public houses, and where he held a kind of levée. The High Sheriff of Worcestershire, anxious to prevent unseemly conduct on the part of the executioner, similar to that which had occurred elsewhere, took special pains to speed Berry on his way to his home in Bradford, but instead of proceeding there he alighted at Kidderminster, where a scene occurred which excited a great deal of scandal. I have here a letter from the Mayor of Kidderminster, which reads as follows:— EATHFIELD, WOLVERLEY, KIDDERMINSTER FEBRUARY 4TH, 1889. DEAR SIR E. LEOHMERE, I have this morning a report from our Chief of the Police, to whom I had given instructions to furnish me with all facts bearing upon Berry's visit to Kidderminster. The gist of the matter seems to be this—he arrived in the town about 10.30 a.m., and left again by the 4.9 p.m. train. During that time he visited at least three public houses, at two of which he gave addresses of about ten minutes each, in one on 'Morality,' and in the other on 'Phrenology.' These were heard by Inspector Griffiths, the second in command of our Borough Force. At the public house where he lectured on Phrenology, the attendance might fairly be described as holding a levée. There is no doubt as to his distributing cards bearing his name as Public Executioner. We have tried to procure one, but have failed to do so, and it would be impossible now to obtain one without exciting remarks and suspicion. Berry was certainly sober whilst in the town, as the Chief Constable gave orders as soon as he heard he was in the place that he was to be watched and arrested if he became intoxicated. I may add, that at one of the houses he visited, he spoke of Crowther whom he had executed that morning. I hope these details will meet your requirements. I have every reason to believe them to be strictly accurate. I am, yours very sincerely, EDWARD J. MORTON, Mayor of Kidderminster." I have also a letter from a Town Councillor of Kidderminster, who says— I have gone into this matter thoroughly, and find that he did visit public houses at Kidderminster, including the following;—"The Anchor Inn," Worcester Street; "Lyttleton's Arms," Park Butts; "Plough and Harrow," Bewdley Street. At the first he freely distributed his card, and held animated converse with all comers. One of such cards I enclose, but it must be returned to me. At the second public house he and his assistant were demonstrating in the presence of numerous men and women, and his language is described as foul and disgusting. The assistant above referred to is a barber at Kidderminster named Silcox, and was passed into the gaol by Berry under an assumed name as his pupil, I thought it my duty to call the attention of the Home Secretary (Mr. Matthews) to these facts, and did so by means of a question in this House. I may say that I have no personal feeling in this matter. I believe that this man does his terrible work with all the skill, and, I believe, with as much humanity as men of that occupation have ever brought to bear on the work they have to do. But he himself has stated that he is absolutely without any conditions or rules. As long as he is the servant of the High Sheriff he is under the orders of the High Sheriff, but before and after the execution he is under no authority or rule or control. The feeling of Grand Juries and Courts of Quarter Sessions on this subject is known by a considerable number of presentments. Grand Juries in Surrey, Dorset, Westmoreland, Leicestershire, Worcestershire, the City of Worcester, Lincolnshire, Gloucestershire, Durham, the City of York, and elsewhere have all expressed themselves in favour of the Resolution I have ventured to propose to the House. Two Judges have expressed their opinion on the subject—namely, Lord Chief Justice Coleridge and Mr. Justice Denman. The Lord Chief Justice, in receiving the presentment of the Grand Jury at Worcester, said— The Judges were deeply interested in the right and duly decorous administration of the law, and there was not one of them who would not heartily sympathize and do everything in his power to enforce the recommendation. Mr. Justice Denman expressed a different view when the York City Grand Jury handed in a presentment respecting the appointment of a public executioner; his Lordship said— He would forward the recommendation to the proper quarter, but he did not think that such a subject should be put into the hands of the Government. He would suggest, as a better plan, for the Visiting Justices to appoint a person connected with the gaol who was a thoroughly respectable, praiseworthy, and efficient man, who should be set apart to carry out the work of execution, in consideration of which he should have an addition to his salary quite independent of the Government of the day. He did not think it desirable that the Sheriff should have to hunt up a man from other places, but any particular gaol might furnish some person from amongst the warders who might perform the office. That was his opinion. It might be wrong, but such gentlemen as those of the Grand Jury would be more likely to come to a right decision on the matter. With all deference and respect to Mr. Justice Denman, I contend that the employment of persons connected with gaols as executioners would be anything but conducive to good discipline. Let me, on that point, quote the words of a very excellent Prison Governor, Lieutenant Leggett, Governor of Worcester Gaol:— I cannot too strongly protest against the suggestion of employing the officers of any prison in such a capacity. I could not believe that any one with actual experience of prison life and duties could have seriously entertained such an idea for a moment. Now, more than ever, is it desirable to raise the standard of a prison officer's status. If he were liable, as a part of his duties, to be called on to officiate as assistant to the common hangman, or, in his absence, as principal, how should such a man be looked upon in the future by his brother warders, his relatives and acquaintances in his immediate neighbourhood? Such an arrangement, in my humble judgment, would be highly unpopular throughout the prison service. I think that very likely the House is very little acquainted with the Report of the Committee appointed by Lord Cross some years ago, and of which Lord Aberdare was Chairman, to consider certain circumstances mainly arising out of a lamentable miscarriage of justice which had taken place a short time before. One of those who gave evidence before the Committee was Colonel Cowan, one of the Sheriffs of London. He said, with reference to the appointment of hangman— I think leaving it to the discretion of the Sheriff to select a person is not so perfect, and not so good, and it is not so likely to be a good appointment as would be the case if the authorities selected the man and gave him the necessary amount of instruction. Colonel Cowan also said— The great practical object is to secure a fit man for the office who shall conduct it with skill, and at the same time be a fairly respectable man who is not likely to do anything to disgrace an office which, in itself, is not too much respected. Another witness, and a very important one, Dr. Carte, who spoke from experience, as having been medical officer to one of Her Majesty's prisons, said— I am of opinion that there should be a regularly appointed hangman under the control of the Home Office, or whatever office the post would properly come under. I deem the manner in which Sheriffs bargain with an ignorant hangman for his bungling services most objectionable. Not only would I have a regularly appointed hangman, but I would have certain rules laid down for him to follow. An hon. Member called attention to the fact that there were not forty Members present. The House was counted, and, forty Members being in their places,

*SIR E. LECHMERE

continued: Should the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary (Mr. Matthews) be willing to make any change, I think that the hangman should be properly appointed and should be certificated. He ought to possess a certificate to the effect that he was well qualified by his conduct to perform the duties. I believe also that there should be an assistant executioner, so that when two executions take place on the same day in different parts of England, there may be two men capable of performing the duties. I think that the men should be paid by the State, in accordance with a custom which is almost universal. In France and Germany the executioner is paid by the State, and even in our small dependency of Malta the same system is adopted. In conclusion, I would ask the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary (Mr. Matthews) if he does not think that any grave constitutional principle is involved, to support my Motion. I believe that no constitutional principle whatever is involved, and that the change I propose would be not only beneficial to the State, but approved by the public at large, and by those who are interested in carrying out the administration of justice in the country.

Amendment proposed, To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words, "in the opinion of this House, such persons who may from time to time be employed, in pursuance of justice, in carrying into effect the extreme penalty of the Law by hanging, should be placed under the direct control of the Home Office,"—(Sir Edmund Lechemere,) —instead thereof.

Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."

MR. LOCKWOOD (York)

I rise to second the Motion, and I hope the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary (Mr. Matthews) will see his way to accept it in the terms in which the hon. Baronet opposite has moved it. I would point out that it does not propose in any way to interfere with the duties which High Sheriffs, through their Under Sheriffs, are, in the present state of the law, called upon to perform. It merely asks the Home Office, as a responsible body, to see that persons are appointed who are qualified to carry out the terrible work, and who will he responsible to some office with regard to the way in which executions are carried out. I am aware that a Report of a Committee of the House of Lords, published in Tune, 1888, suggested that the High Sheriff should be relieved of all responsibility in connection with the execution of criminals, and that the opinion was expressed by that Committee that the penalty of death should be enforced by the authority which now has charge of all prisoners and controls the execution of other penal sentences. I see very grave objections to that recommendation being carried out, and I do not think that we should ask the Home Secretary, upon the consideration of a Resolution such as this, to pledge himself to any such sweeping arrangement. What the hon. Baronet has asked for is that the Home Office should grant certificates to properly qualified persons, and that the certificates should he held subject to the work being done in a proper manner. No doubt many hon. Members, and a large number of persons outside that House, hold strong views on the question of capital punishment. Some are of opinion that it should be abolished altogether; but every one will agree that if capital punishment continues to form a part of the Penal Code of this country, it should be carried out with decency. There have been grave scandals in connection with executions. I have heard of scenes such as the hon. Baronet has described. Receptions have been held the night before executions, and the man who was to carry out the sentence of the law was the hero of the hour. The terrible implements of death were shown—I suppose for the purpose of satisfying some morbid curiosity—and after the sentence of death has been carried out there has been another reception. Then there have been descriptions of that which the law says should be kept private. And, also, an exhibition is made of the mode in which the wretched criminal has been prepared for his death; but I will not go further into this disagreeable subject. I will only say that I regard the Resolution of the hon. Baronet as a possible means of putting a stop to such scandals in the future. Now what, I ask, is our present system? It is the duty of the High Sheriff to take over into his custody the criminal who has been convicted and sentenced to death. This is a duty which, however, is performed by the Under Sheriff, and I believe it is necessary that the Under Sheriff should be present when the sentence of death is passed, and also when it is carried into execution, for the purpose of indentification. Moreover, if the Under Sheriff is not able to secure the services of anyone willing to discharge the terrible functions of the executioner, that officer, according to the dreadful traditions of our law, has to perform the duty with his own hands. Under these circumstances, we can imagine how it is that the Under Sheriffs—and here T must not be taken as finding fault with the way in which they, as a rule, perform their duty, for I believe they do it well—are willing to accept anybody who offers himself as prepared to carry out the last sentence of the law. Were the Resolution of the hon. Baronet carried into effect, the result would be that a certain number of men would be appointed who would hold certificates and licences from the Home Office, and, if I may call the attention of the Home Secretary to the 7th section of the 31st Victoria, chap. 24, he will see there is no doubt that the Home Office has power to grant these certificates or licences, for by that section it is provided that— The Home Secretary, under this Act, may from time to time permit such rules and regulations to be observed in the execution of the judgment of death as he may from time to time deem expedient for the purpose. These words, it appears to me, are wide enough to give the Home Secretary the necessary power, supposing he does not possess it otherwise, as I think he does; but if he has no discretion in the matter, I venture to think that under that section there is ample authority to him to grant such certificates and licences. The subject is not an agreeable one to enlarge upon. and I have said what I have to say upon it; but I would appeal to the right hon. Gentleman, in the interests of the community, to lend a favourable ear to this proposal. In the Courts of Justice, from the highest official down to the lowest officer who disturbs the proceedings by calling "silence," everyone has a responsible duty to perform; but in the case we are discussing, the man who carries out the last terrible sentence of the law, and on whose conduct so much depends, is an irresponsible individual. I trust the Home Secretary will be able to accept this Resolution, in order that those employed in the office of executioner may be responsible instead of irresponsible persons.

MR. MORRISON (Skipton)

I am prepared to go as far as the recommendation of the Select Committee of the House of Lords, because I think that the hangman should be appointed under direct responsibility to the Home Office. This goes further than the Motion of the hon. Baronet, and would recognize what is in fact the present practice—namely, that the apparatus of the executioner should be provided by the Home Office. It will be admitted that it is a very odious thing to throw on the gentleman who holds the office of High Sheriff of his county the duty of making provision for carrying out the sentence of death. I am not quite prepared to accept the Motion of the hon. Baronet, and would point out that if the suggestion I have made were carried out it would get rid of the greatest scandal of all—namely, that although the High Sheriff engages the executioner for individual executions, he has no further control over him after the executions are performed. I would only further endeavour to enforce what has fallen from the hon. Baronet as to the extreme inexpediency of having the executions performed by the regular staff of the gaol. Such a duty would be very unpopular among the governors and warders of our prisons. I believe it is the opinion of the most experienced governors of our gaols that to adopt such a proposal would tend to interfere with the authority of the warders over the prisoners, and would also have a tendency to prevent good men from applying for the post of warder, it being eminently necessary, when one remembers the difficult, delicate, and responsible duties those officers have to discharge, that every care should be taken to secure that really good men should be induced to offer themselves for that position. I think that the appointment of the hangman should be directly in the hands of the Home Secretary, and I think we should derive further advantage from following up the practice which has lately been adopted of excluding reporters from executions.

MR. H. COSSHAM (Bristol, East)

I think we are much indebted to the hon. Baronet for having called attention to this question as to the execution of the extreme penalty of the law—a subject which tends to produce in the public mind a considerable amount of feeling, One of the unfortunate circumstances connected with the position of executioner is that the man who has to do the work of carrying out the law is frequently regarded by a certain section of the public rather in the light of a hero. It was my misfortune the other day to come to London in a train which brought the public executioner up from the West of England, and it was a matter of horror to me to find, when we got to Swindon, that that man became a centre of attraction for the people there assembled, and was pointed at by almost everyone as a man of importance, who was to be looked at. I think there can be nothing more morbid and lowering to the public taste than a feeling of that sort. I hope the House will recollect that in all the cases in which hanging has been abolished, the crimes fur which it used to be the penalty have decreased in number. This would seem to be a point in favour of the abolition of capital punishment altogether, rather than in the direction indicated by the Motion of the hon. Baronet; but at any rate, if capital punishment is to be retained, the execution should be carried out in such a way as to cause the least amount of shock to the public mind and public taste. Therefore, I shall support the Motion of the hon. Baronet as far as it goes, but I would invite him to walk in the more advanced path of endeavouring to obtain a better mode of treating criminals than that of hanging them. During the last few days a man was hanged—I have no doubt with perfect fairness—after memorials from something like 20,000 or 30,000 persons had been sent in in his behalf. If any other method of punishment were adopted, I have no doubt there would be far less sympathy than is now awakened on the part of the criminal, rather than on behalf of the law, and the fact that there is this sympathy with the criminal leads me to think that the law cannot be a wise one. I hope the House will take every opportunity of keeping awake and deepening the sentiment which has been aroused in the public mind against capital punishment; and, while supporting the hon. Baronet as far as he goes, I ask the House to look for some other mode of dealing with the question rather than that of merely mitigating the existing evil in the small way now proposed.

MR. PICKERSGILL (Bethnal Green, S.W.)

It seems to me that the Resolution of the hon. Baronet goes too far on the one band, and not far enough on the other. At present the Sheriffs are entirely responsible for the effectual and decent carrying out of all executions, their responsibility including all the necessary arrangements, and the selection of the persons on whom the success of these grand proceedings depends. It seems to me that the Resolution of the hon. Baronet would, if adopted, place us in an illogical position, because, while it would continue to leave the Sheriffs responsible for the execution of the last penalty of the law, it would still place those officers under the obligation to employ, as the chief instrument in the proceedings, a person whom they do not appoint, and over whom they do not have full authority. I think there are only two logical courses open to us—the one being, to leave the matter where it now is, and the other to transfer the entire responsibility and control over the arrangements for executions from the Sheriffs to the Home Office. Now, I hold that if this were entirely a new question, this House could not hesitate long as to what would be the proper course. I have always regretted the passing of the existing Act, and had I been a Member of the House of Commons at the time, I should have used every legitimate means to prevent its being passed. But, as we have to face the fact that all the persons engaged in the execution of every other sentence of the law are under the control of the Home Office, it is futile and idle for us to stickle at the transfer to the Home Office of the execution of the ultimate penalty of the law. And there is another consideration which weighs with me in this matter. We have recently had attention called to a case in which the Press were excluded by the local authority from being present at the execution. My hon. Friend reminds me that the instance to which I refer occurred at Bristol. Much may be said for excluding the Press—as much may be said for admitting the Press. There seems to me, however, one, thing which is absolutely indefensible and untenable, and that is that the practice throughout the country should vary according to the personal opinions of the Sheriff. Where the public eye, acting through the reporters, is most required, is at executions; otherwise, you have no check whatever upon the proceedings of the officials If the recommendation of the Motion were adopted, and the control over the proceedings were transferred to the Home Office, we should, at all events, secure uniformity either in one direction or the other. For these reasons, Mr. Speaker, although I do not at all sympathize with the Resolution on the Paper, and I shall not vote for it, yet I think the balance of argument is rather in favour of the transference of the entire responsibility to the Home Office.

*THE HOME SECRETARY (Mr. MATTHEWS)

Sir, the various speakers have developed a diversity of views, which is always the danger attendant upon a discussion of this sort. One speaker advocates the abolition of capital punishment altogether, and another pointed out the Resolution was not a logical consequence of the reasons given in support of it. With much that has been said by the Mover everybody will be in entire sympathy; but I must at once offer emphatic opposition to the suggested transference of responsibility for the execution of the sentence of death from the Sheriff to the Home Office, for such transference, I think, would be a great mistake. As long as we retain capital punishment it is a matter of considerable consequence that the responsibility for carrying it out should devolve upon local officers rather than upon Government officers. The presence at an execution of such an officer as a Sheriff is an assurance to the public that there will be nothing unfair; that no undue partiality will be shown to the convict, no matter what his rank, position, political antecedents, or status in society may have been. It is important to have a local officer to take care that the right man is executed. If the responsibility were transferred to the Home Office I would be bound to send down an official high in rank to be present when the sentence of death was passed, so as to be in a position to take care of the minor though not unimportant detail that the right person was really executed. Every Under Sheriff at present is responsible for the identification of the unhappy man who is to suffer. You could not leave this and the general responsibility with the Sheriff without leaving him also the free choice of the agent for carrying out the execution. Then as to the presence of the Press, I think that is essentially an open matter, and judging from the way in which the Bristol Press seems disposed to treat so melancholy an event as an execution, I can well understand that there are reasons for excluding the reporters of the Press. On the other hand, there may be other cases in which such reasons do not exist; and the law, to me it seems properly and wisely, gives discretion to the local authorities as to whether or not reporters shall be admitted. The discretion is now vested in the Sheriff or Visiting Justices. It would be perfectly impossible for the Home Secretary, without knowing the local circumstances, to exercise that discretion. These are duties which are properly fulfilled by the local authorities. Inasmuch as I am afraid there must occasionally be mishaps and failures in carrying out executions without those instruments, allusion to which would distress a man of feeling, so long as those contingencies are inevitable, then I cannot help feeling that if a Government Department were made responsible, those failures in carrying out executions might be made the ground of Party attacks of the most intolerable and regrettable description. If, as I understand my hon. Friend, he does not mean to take the responsibility from the Sheriff, then as the cautious logic of the hon. Member for Bethnal Green pointed out, you cannot control him in the choice of the executioner who is to take part in the most terrible part of the melancholy function. It would be inconsistency to insist on the responsibility of the Sheriff and to deprive him of the choice of the means for fulfilling that responsibility. But the person who seems most warmly in favour of the Motion is Berry himself. Berry has written me a letter which would really "draw iron tears down Pluto's cheek," in which he urges me, "as a Conservative Member of Parliament and a gentleman of sound education, to kindly assist Sir E. Lechmere to carry his Resolution through the House of Commons." Therefore, Berry is one of the persons supporting it. If satisfactory to my hon. Friend, I am willing to give a partial undertaking. It would not be an easy thing for the Home Office to select some officer who might be considered capable of conducting this terrible function skilfully, and at the same time be a man of respectability who might be trusted to abide by the conditions imposed upon him; but if such a man can be selected he might be tendered to the Sheriff to be employed if the Sheriff thought fit, just as at present a scaffold is offered without in the least insisting that it shall be used. No doubt this plan would give security against such misconduct and painful incidents as attention has been called to. In the Kidderminster case Berry acted in defiance of the express agreement with the Sheriff—that he was not to go to any place of public entertainment after the execution, but was to proceed direct to the railway station accompanied by a warder. He violated these conditions, and there might be no security that an official from the Home Office would not equally yield to the temptation, which seems to be offered by a morbid curiosity, except it were the risk of forfeiting his employment. I will consider whether it is possible for the Home Office to select some fit and well-conducted person. It has been pointed out that many persons regard this as a hateful office, the holder of which, so far from being an object of interest, should be abhorred, and there are few respectable men who would undertake the office unless the temptation is made larger than can be offered. But it by no means follows that I could not find a fitting person who might be confidently recommended to Sheriffs. I will undertake to consider the matter and see whether it is possible to find such a person. The suggestion of Mr. Justice Denman that a warder in every gaol should be selected for the duty seems to be quite impracticable. At some gaols there is not an execution in 10 years; and it would be au extravagant undertaking to appoint an executioner at each gaol. I have no corps in connection with me from which I could obtain a man to accept so ungrateful and unwelcome a post; but I am prepared to endeavour to carry out my hon. Friend's views in the direction he has stated; but it must be clearly understood that I could only tender the services of the man so selected to the different Sheriffs, leaving it to them to employ him or not as they thought fit, just as scaffolds and other appliances are offered to prison authorities and the Sheriff, leaving their responsibility entirely untouched. I hope my bon. Friend will be satisfied with this offer, and will not press the Resolution to a Division.

*SIR E. LECHMERE

I am to a certain extent satisfied with the undertaking of the right hon. Gentleman, who may probably in carrying it out draw up rules and conditions which will have the effect of securing the object in view. I would, therefore, ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.

Objection being taken, the Speaker put the Motion, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question," which was agreed to.

Main Question again proposed.