§ EARL COWPER, in rising to call attention to the office of public executioner; and to ask Her Majesty's Government, Whether they do not consider it desirable that this functionary should, for the future, be appointed, and, if necessary, removed, by one of Her Majesty's Secretaries of State? said, he thought it was unnecessary to state at any length his reasons for bringing this subject forward. They had all been disgusted at seeing certain accounts in the newspapers, not only recently, but on former occasions, with reference to the conduct of the executioner and the manner in which he performed his duties. He thought it was a very serious state of matters that the executioner was in the habit of drinking very freely, and going about public-houses and showing his implements to large crowds of people. Not only so, but when in the actual discharge of his duties the executioner seemed to be perfectly incapable of carrying them out satisfactorily. That being so, they must recognize that it was a very serious matter. He was content to rest his case on the fact that on Monday last a Coroner's jury deliberately, and after much consideration, severely censured the executioner for the clumsy performance of the execution at which he was engaged. They should be glad to know how far these accusations were true. He should probably be told that the Home Office had nothing to do with the appointment of the 1517 executioner for the reason that he was appointed by the Sheriff of each county, and that he was in fact a kind of deputy Under Sheriff. This was the very thing he complained of. He was sure that their Lordships would think, if what had been said could be proved on inquiry to be true, that the person who filled this office at the present time ought to be got rid of if, possible, and that room should be made for one who was more capable of discharging the duties. It was not, however, so far as he could make out, very easy to get rid of the present executioner. He could not imagine any position more disagreeable than that of a Sheriff at this moment. If a sentence of death was to be carried out, the Sheriff had either to employ a man who was given to drunken habits and known to be incompetent, or he would find it very difficult to get anyone else to do the duty for the sum of £10, which he understood was the sum paid. It might be very easy to got a man to undertake all the executions throughout the United Kingdom, receiving £10 each time, amounting in the aggregate to £200 or £300 a year; but it would not be an easy matter to get a man to officiate in each particular case. It was all very well to say that this practice first grew up some considerable time ago. In those days people were not so particular, and a man could be got more easily in those days to perform the duty. But now people had become more squeamish, and therefore it was that this office had fallen into the hands of a man appointed for the whole of the United Kingdom, with this disadvantage—that he was responsible to nobody, and there was great difficulty in getting rid of him. He did not think there should be any difficulty in getting a man permanently appointed for the office. He was informed that when Marwood died the public were under the impression that the Home Office had to appoint his successor. The result was that there were no fewer than 800 applicants, and out of this large number he thought it should not have been a very difficult matter to secure the appointment of a man who would carry out his duties without creating a scandal. He thought their Lordships would agree with him that after reading the recent accounts of what had taken place at several executions the scandal ought not to be allowed 1518 to occur again, and that the man who was guilty of causing it ought to be removed. They were all horrified at the idea of even the greatest criminal having to endure unnecessary sufferings or having those sufferings unnecessarily prolonged. This, however, was not the only reason. The majority of thinking men in this country, he believed, thought it was absolutely necessary for the sake of the security of life, and for the keeping down of murder, that whoever was guilty of taking life should forfeit his own. But he thought they need not disguise from themselves that they were in these days very much governed by sentiment. If there were many repetitions of such things as the heart of a man continuing to beat for 13 minutes after the drawing of the bolt an outcry and clamour might be raised for doing away with capital punishment altogether which it would be difficult to resist. The suggestion which he had to make was that the appointment of the executioner should be vested in the Home Office. In the last Act passed dealing with the subject of executions and making them private instead of public, a clause was inserted distinctly reserving the rights of the Sheriffs. But this right of appointing the hangman they would probably be only too willing to give up. Perhaps the Home Secretary might not be so willing to accept it. But it seemed to be for the public interest that he should do so.
THE EARL OF DALHOUSIEsaid, he was glad to be able to disappoint the expectation of the noble Earl in one respect. He certainly should not tell the noble Earl on behalf of the Secretary of State that the Government had nothing to do with this question. Since the noble Earl had put his Notice on the Paper Her Majesty's Government had had their attention directed to this matter, and they would certainly take it into their consideration. His noble Friend had described with perfect accuracy the manner in which the executioner was at present appointed. There was no such thing as a permanent executioner. His noble Friend was, it appeared, of opinion that if a permanent executioner was appointed such scandals as those of which they had recently read would no longer occur. He, however, was afraid that it was useless to expect that the class of men who volunteered for the 1519 post of common hangman would be men of high character, refinement, and culture, and he did not see why the Secretary of State should be more fortunate in his selection of an executioner than the Sheriffs of London. He happened to know that when the appointment was last made the Sheriffs had no less than 800 applications, and they went through these with great care, so as to secure the best qualified person. What reason was there for supposing that the Home Secretary would be more fortunate? If the appointment were transferred to the Secretary of State he would then become responsible for the manner in which each execution was performed; whereas under the present law the responsibility of seeing the sentence carried out devolved on the Sheriff, who, if he could not obtain a person to carry it out, was obliged to carry it out himself. The alteration suggested by the noble Earl would, therefore, entail a change in the whole body of the law relating to this matter. He might remind the House that, so late as 1877, when the Prisons Act was passed, the duty of carrying out the capital sentence was expressly reserved to the Sheriffs, and it was intended—he supposed for good reasons—that the local authority should be charged with carrying out the law, and not the administrative authority. The details of the cases referred to by the noble Earl had not yet been received by the Secretary of State. When received they would be carefully looked into, and the point to which the noble Earl had called attention would not be forgotten.