THE EARL OF MILLTOWN, in rising to ask the Government the Question of which he had given Notice with respect to the Lamson case, said, after a long and patient trial, George Henry Lamson was convicted of a most deliberate and cruel murder on a helpless, crippled boy; and the learned Judge who passed upon him the extreme sentence of the law expressed his full concurrence with the verdict and his deep abhorrence of the crime. The prisoner had the good fortune to be defended most fully and ably by some of the most eminent counsel at the Criminal Bar, and they, no doubt, after full consideration and consultation with the prisoner's friends, resolved not to raise the plea of insanity, probably thinking it hopeless; and the sole question left to the jury was whether Percy John was murdered by George Henry Lamson, the result being that the jury declared their firm conviction that he was. After the trial, as was now always the case on such occasions, an attempt was made by the friends of the condemned man to 1384 obtain from the Secretary of State for the Home Department a remission of the extreme penalty of the law on the ground of the prisoner's insanity; but that functionary, in the face of the recent trial and sentence by the learned Judge, most properly declined to interfere. Such was the state of affairs with regard to this matter, until some two or three days before the date fixed for the execution of the sentence, when the country was astounded by the intelligence that the Secretary of State, at the request of the President of the United States, conveyed through the noble Earl at the Foreign Office (Earl Granville), had determined to postpone the execution of the sentence for 10 days, in order to obtain some further evidence from America with regard to the prisoner's insanity. Although perfectly satisfied with the justice and propriety of the verdict, the Secretary of State had allowed a foreign Government to interfere in this absolutely English question with the due course of the Criminal Law. That had been done at the instance of a Government which prided itself upon its Monroe doctrine, and would refuse to permit the smallest interference on the part of any European Government, not only with its own internal affairs, but with anything affecting the two vast Continents of North and South America. He (the Earl of Milltown) was far from wishing to say anything offensive to the citizens—for the most part their kinsmen—of that great Transatlantic Republic, for which he felt the greatest respect and the most unbounded admiration. No other country more strenuously resented such interference than the United States; and he could not help thinking that if, during the trial of Guiteau, the Government of this or any other country had requested that a trial which had become, in his (the Earl of Milltown's) opinion, and in the opinion of many other persons as well, a positive scandal to civilization, should be conducted with some regard to decency, they would have been most properly met by the Government of the United States telling them to mind their own business. It was true that our Government never thought either of remonstrating or interfering in the slightest degree in that trial; and, therefore, such was the answer which he ventured to submit should have been given by the 1385 noble Earl opposite, though in the courteous language of diplomacy, to the President of the United States. But even supposing that this American evidence as to the insanity of Lamson was of the strongest possible description, it could, he submitted, in no way affect the issue tried at the Old Bailey. Whether he or his ancestors had or had not shown symptoms of insanity, America could not affect the question whether, at the time he committed the murder, he was responsible for his own acts. Reference was made by the Judge, in the trial of Maclean for the atrocious crime of shooting at the Queen, to the principles laid down in M'Naughten's trial, that it was the duty of the jury to say whether the person charged was insane at the time of the offence; and the test was whether he could then distinguish right from wrong; and he (the Earl of Milltown) thought it equally applied to this case. There was another dilemma. If the Secretary of State were to set aside the verdict of the jury and the opinion of the learned Judge, was he to send the murderer forth into the world, or was he to mitigate his sentence to penal servitude? As to confining him as a criminal lunatic, he did not believe that a man whom a jury had found guilty of murder, and who had not been acquitted on the ground of insanity, could be so confined. Besides that, the proceedings in this case were positively cruel, and the last respite reminded him of nothing so much as of a cat playing with a mouse. He hoped the Government would not yield to the arrogant and presumptuous interference of the United States, which was inconsistent with the dignity of this country, and would, if submitted to, create a dangerous precedent for them and their successors. He would, in conclusion, ask the noble Earl the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether there is any existing precedent of a Foreign Government having interfered to arrest a judgment pronounced on a British subject by an English court of justice for a crime committed in England of which he had been found guilty by a regularly constituted jury; and, if not, whether the Secretary of State will inform the House what are the reasons which have induced Her Majesty's Government to accede to such an interference on the part of the Presi- 1386 dent of the United States in the case of the convict Lamson? and would also move for copies of all the correspondence that has taken place with the United States Government on the subject.
§ Moved, "That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty for copies of all the correspondence that has taken place with the United States Government on the subject of the postponement of the execution of the sentence passed upon the convict Lamson."—(The Earl of Milltown.)
§ VISCOUNT MIDLETONsaid, he did not desire to enter into the details of the question before the House, but wished to call attention to a state of things which made a single individual—though that individual was a Secretary of State—the sole quarter whence remissions of sentence in cases of such magnitude proceeded. He would ask whether what had happened did not form the strongest possible argument in favour of a Court of Appeal, before which such cases should be judicially decided? He hoped the Government would be induced by the facts of the case either to institute some inquiry into the present system, or to introduce some measure for the establishment of an Appeal Court in such cases as that of Lamson.
§ EARL GRANVILLEMy Lords, I do not think I am called upon to answer the Question which has been put to me by the noble Viscount who spoke last (Viscount Midleton). It most certainly raises a very important issue; but, for myself, I would say that I have very great doubt whether it would be easy to find a practical and good substitute for the present arrangement. With regard to the Motion of the noble Earl (the Earl of Milltown), I have no objection to it as it stands; but, under the circumstances, it possibly might be more regular that I should postpone any discussion of the question until the Papers are in your Lordships' hands. But, considering the courtesy the noble Earl has already shown me, I would ask your Lordships to be allowed to give a very short answer to the Question he has put to me. The first part of the Question is, whether there is any existing precedent of a Foreign Government having interfered to arrest a judgment pronounced on a British subject by an English court of justice for a crime committed in Eng- 1387 ]and of which he had been found guilty by a regularly constituted jury? The second is contingent upon my answer—namely, that, if there is no precedent, whether I will state the reasons for the course that has been followed? I remember the late Lord John Russell once telling me that which often happened in Parliament—that you gave the best possible reasons for a thing without producing any effect; but if you could say that a thing had been done in the time of Queen Elizabeth, the thing was settled. With regard to precedents, all I have to say is, that it is a thing of very constant occurrence that foreign Governments should interfere with regard to persons under the sentence of a Judicial Court; and if I may find a precedent of not only what a foreign Government has done, but of what we have done in foreign countries, I take as a type what happened, as I daresay the noble Marquess opposite (the Marquess of Salisbury) recollects, in 1877, when the German Ambassador made an appeal in behalf of two Germans, one of whom was sentenced to imprisonment for unlawfully wounding—
§ THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYIt was in Lord Derby's time that this occurred, not in mine.
§ EARL GRANVILLEThe other was sentenced to penal servitude for forgery. The noble Lord who then presided at the Foreign Office did not show the slightest resentment at the interference, though Sir R. Assheton Cross decided, after a full investigation of the circumstances, that there were no grounds for the revision of the sentences. And I think that is really the thing that makes the whole difference. Were it assumed, in the slightest degree, that that was an interference, on the part either of the United States or of Germany, with the action of our Municipal Law, I think there are no words too strong to express our resentment at such interference. In this case before your Lordships, I feel there is no assumption of that sort. Formerly, in this country, after a criminal had been condemned to death the execution took place almost immediately. In later times a considerable period was allowed to elapse, for the express purpose of enabling the Secretary of State to consider any circumstances which might appear from their nature to be desirable to lay before the Sovereign with regard to the 1388 exercise of the Prerogative of Mercy. Now, this term of a fortnight is generally amply sufficient for circumstances confined to this country; but in cases where a person has been in Canada, or in India, or in one of our large Colonies, and there are circumstances connected with those places, a greater time has been given; and I own I think the Secretary of State for the Home Department would have taken a grave responsibility on himself if he had entirely refused to consider information which the American Secretary of State guaranteed to be of a bonâ fide and important character, and on which he had been advised by the highest legal authority of the country. In reference to what has fallen from the noble Earl, as to the cruelty of the proceedings, I think the argument has been pushed a little too far. If I were sentenced to be hanged to-morrow, and this alternative had been offered to me, I do not think I should have quarrelled with it on the score of humanity. I am glad to have had the opportunity of stating, in the most clear manner, that we should resent, as affecting the dignity of this country, any interference on the part of a foreign Government with the course of English law. But here we have merely the fact of information given and stated on high authority to be of an important character; and I should hardly like myself to refuse to foreign Governments the same power with reference to their subjects in this country which we have frequently claimed on behalf of our own subjects abroad.
§ THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYsaid, that, in his opinion, his noble Friend behind him (the Earl of Milltown) was justified in bringing this subject before the consideration of the House. The manner in which the Secretary of State for the Home Department had exercised his powers in respect to the Prerogative of Mercy was not a matter usually discussed in that House; but the Question of the noble Earl raised considerations affecting our national independence. At the same time, he did not think it was possible to form any judgment till the Papers were before their Lordships which the noble Earl opposite (Earl Granville) had promised. It was impossible to lay down a rule that we would not listen to the suggestions of any foreign Government in regard to criminal sentences, especially in the case 1389 of a man born, as Lamson was, on American soil. We could not do so without laying down a rule with respect to other Governments which we did not observe ourselves. There were many cases showing that this country was not sparing in its efforts in that direction, and sometimes we were a great plague to foreign Governments in our interferences on behalf of British subjects. On the other hand, it was perfectly conceivable that the American Government might have interfered in an improper manner, and might make claims which could not be entertained on the ground of their inadequacy. But, as he had already observed, it was impossible to form any judgment on that point till they had the Papers before them. Perhaps some prejudices had been raised upon that matter, and a greater sensitiveness generated by two circumstances. One was the mere synchronism with certain cases of American interference on behalf of other persons detained in another part of Her Majesty's Dominions, with respect to whom there would be much to say when the question came before their Lordships. But, besides, there was the objection to the punishment of death largely prevalent in some countries, and especially in America; and there was a fear that if such interference were to become a precedent, it might be used, not for purposes which ought to be present to the mind of a Secretary of State, but for the purpose of forwarding the particular notion that the punishment of death ought not to be inflicted. Of course, if there was any interference on the part of foreign Governments, such as that of suggesting to this country the kind of punishment by which we ought to visit particular offences, it would very properly be resented as unsuited to the dignity and independence of the country. As, however, the case appeared at present, and subject to any considerations that might arise out of the Papers to be presented, he did not see that there was any ground for censuring the action of the Home Secretary.
THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, that the subject of a Court of Criminal Appeal was a very important one; and it would, no doubt, receive from Parliament the consideration which its importance deserved, whenever it might be brought forward. But the noble Viscount (Viscount Midleton) was mis- 1390 taken in supposing that an improvement in such cases as this would necessarily be effected by the establishment of a Court of Criminal Appeal. It must be manifest that delay and suspense would be among the inevitable consequences—delay probably greater than had taken place in the present instance. It was also a mistake to suppose that by such a Court you would get rid of the Prerogative of Mercy in the Crown, and the duty of the responsible Minister to advise the Crown as to the exercise of that Prerogative. It was part of the duty of the Secretary of State to advise the Crown as to the exercise of that Prerogative upon grounds which no Court of Appeal, or, indeed, Court of Law whatever, could entertain—namely, upon the view which he might take of the moral importance of circumstances which were not, and could not be in any sense, legal evidence. On the other hand, to establish a Court to deal with matters which never could form the subject-matter of legal evidence would be contrary to all sound principles of legislation. If a Court of Criminal Appeal were established, it must proceed upon legal evidence, and upon that alone.
§ Motion agreed to.
§ Resolved, That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty for copies of all the correspondence that has taken place with the United States Government on the subject of the postponement of the execution of the sentence passed upon the convict Lamson.