LORD ST. LEONARDSasked Her Majesty's Government, Whether Askern, who acted as the executioner of Johnson at Leeds on the 2nd instant had ever officiated in the capacity of executioner before; whether the choice of the rope is entirely left to the executioner, and whether it is tested in any way by the prison authorities previously to being used; and, whether Her Majesty's Government have any objection to state the number of executions and reprieves, since private were substituted for public executions, and also during an equal number of years previous to that change?
§ EARL BEAUCHAMPsaid, that what bad occurred at Leeds was purely by accident, and not from the neglect of proper precautions. With regard to the man Askern, there had been four executions at Leeds since it had been made an Assize town, and on these occasions Askern had officiated as executioner. He was informed that Askern had been an executioner in Yorkshire and elsewhere for about 20 years—so that he had the qualifications which experience could give. The choice of the rope was not left absolutely to the executioner, and it did happen in this particular case that there was some consultation between him and the prison authorities as to the size of the rope to be used. The rope was subjected to a rigid test in order to ascertain whether it was suitable or not. As far as the accident could be traced to 1526 anything, it seemed to have resulted from over precautions having been taken in testing the rope—it was considerably strained, and consequently was unable to sustain such a sudden jerk as the circumstances required. Their Lordships would see that precautions were taken, and that it was in consequence of over care that the accident occurred. As to the number of executions and reprieves since the date when private were substituted for public executions, he could give no information beyond what was contained in the Judicial Statistics for each year. He could not quite gather the meaning of the word "reprieve" as it was used in the Question of the noble Lord. As regards the executions, however, it appeared that there were 10 in 1869, when private executions commenced in consequence of an Act passed in 1868; there were 6 executions in 1870, 4 in 1871, 13 in 1872, 10 in 1873, 16 in 1874, and 18 in 1875. In the six years before the introduction of private executions the numbers were as follows:—12 in 1868, 10 in 1867, 12 in 1866, 7 in 1865, 9 in 1864, and 22 in 1863. He did not think these figures afforded a basis for any theory with regard to the increase or diminution of the deterrent effects of private as compared with public executions.