The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1835-03-10 00:00:00

CHESTER CRIMINALS' EXECUTION BILL.

On -the motion of Mr. Jervis the house went into committee
on this hilt, Mr. Richards, we believe, in the chair.
The AT'fo iNfiv-CENEaat. rose to propose an amendment.
Whatever might be the legal interpretation put upon the act, it
was certainly Out, the intention of those who framed it that the
duty of executing criminals for offences committed within the
city should devolve upon the sheriff of the county: Matters
had, however, come to such a pass. that the grand jury of the
county of the town threw out all bills for capital offences which
might give their sheriff the trouble of superintending an execu-
tion, and the grand jury of the county did the same for their
sheriff. lt was, however, a great question whether this duty
ought„ in consequence, to be thruwu on an officer like the con-
stable of the castle of Chester, of little or no station, and of little
or,no -responsibility. (Hear.) Nobody, before -this bill was
lirought in, ever dieamt of those functions being committed to
that officer, vet the preamble of the bill stated that, doubts
haying arisen whether the sheriff of the-city of Chester or the
sheriff of the county should perform the duty of executing cri-
- urinals for offeuces committed within the city of Chester, the
unstable of the castle of Chester
,should execute that office.
',lon. members would, he thought, agree with him that a gaoler,
a mere subordinate officer, receiving a smail salary, and 're-
movable at .he pleasure of the crown, ought not to have the
-uporintendence of a cerennthy which required to be attended
with every circumstance that could impart to it the character of
stnenmay. .u.iess a great impression was proouced upon the
mind of the public by the execution of a criminal, he thought
the loss of life was hardly to be justified. He was not for ex-
_tending the punishment of death—he was for abolishing it
wherever it could be done With safety (cheers;) and he thought
it would tend greatly to lessen its effect if the infliction of it was
to be left to a subordivate officer. There was something unseem-
ly, also, in the gaoler of the criminal beings his executiouei.
He was aware that in law the sheriff had the custody of the
criinival's person, but it was not in fact under his charge, and
the union of the two offices, which would be created' by the bill,
would be most distressing to the feelings of the unhappy person
to he executed. Ile proposed, therefore, that instead of saying
that an act should be passed to remove doubts which had arisen
as to the jurisdiction of the sheriff>, the act should recite, that
whereas the sheriffs of the county of the city of Chester were by
law liable mud were used and accustomed to execute all et imin-
ale executed for offences committed in the county of the city of
Chester, and whereas since the
.passing of the said art the said
sheriffs have executed such criminals, the said sheriffs shall in
ratite obey the order of the judge of assize, in the, same man-
ner as they before obeyed the order of the Court of Grand Ses-
sion, with reference to such execution as aforesaid ; and the
sheriffs of the county shall in like manner be bound to obey the
order of the judge of assize in respect to the, execution of
criminals convicted 6f capital offences committed within the
county of Chester. He should be sorry to see the juJges of as-
size deprived of the power of ordering, in a very large county,
a person to be executed near the place where the crime for
which he was to suffer was committed. His noble friend the
Chief Baron of the Exchequer to this day contended that the
sheriff of the city was liable to the duty which his auiendmeut
would declare belou4ed to hint, and that duty was perhirrned
till somebody scauned the act of pat liament with a comets legal
eye, and discovered what was supposed to be a flaw in it. The
hou. and learned gentleman couctuded by proposing his amend-
ment.

Sir J. CAMPBELL said he differed from. his hon. and learned
friend opposite. his opinion was that it would be better to ab-
'Ohio from legislating on the suliject altogether, anti to leave the
question under debate to be settled by a judicial tribunal. The
last trial had gone off on a technical point; but no doubt an
opportunity would he afforded of having the .point decided by a
court of law. The hon. and learned member therefore opposed
the amendment, and moved that the chairman du leave the
chair. _

Mr. Mutt:ix said he thought that those duties which fell on
the sheriff for the county. of York, fot instance, and the sheriffs
of almost all other counties, ought also to devolve on the sheriff
Of the -county cif Chester, and that there ought to be a declara•
torsi act passed to that effect.
'the SoucrTau-GENERAL was very much inclined, to think
that the question ought to be left to a judicial decision. In his
opinion both the sheriffs of the county and of the- city were bound
to see tie sentence carried into execution. lie had no doubt,
however, that the learued judges, when they went that circuit,
should again they find any unfortunate persons requi►ing to be
left under the sentence that had given rise to this question,
would take care to order that the shericlot the county and of the
city should see that the sentence of the law was executed. It
was certainly necessary that some step of some kind or other
should he adopted to prevent a repetition of the agony that the
tate Chester prisoners had been made to undergo.
Mr. JEavis believed that it was almost the unaniumusopinion
of the house that there should be some act passed on the subject.
Mr. O'CONNELL agreed with the view tukcn by the mem-
ber for Bradford. ,
"Mr. Wit.tiaA HAM made a few observations which were. not
distinctly heard. •

Mr. AGLIONBy said he considered it was the bounden duty of
the legislature to pass a deelar-ito.y act, with the view of pre-
venting that which had taken place taking place again.
Sir J. CA Meat:Lt. explained, and withdrew his motion that
the chairman should lease the chair. Ile would agree with
what appeared to be the feeling of the house—that 10 remove
all ilaubt in future, a declaratory act should be passed, and con-
curred therefore in the amendment propOsed by the hon. and.
learned attorney•general.
,Mr. Ewaur supported the proposition of the hon.and learned,
member (Mr. Jervis) with a view of assimilating the practice.
as t 4; the execution of criminals and the general liabilities of the
sheriffs of Chester tn. that. of other contrite&

After a few words from Mr..Goulburn the committee divided,
when there appeared—Ayes 115; Noes 35.—Majority 60 in fa-
vour of the attorney-general'i amendment.
The other clauses were then agreed to, and r the house having
resumed, the report was brought up.

IMPRISuNNIENT POR DEBT.
Sir J. ex xspriELL rose, pursuant to notice, to move for leave
to bring in a bill to abolish imprisonment fin debt, except in
cases of fraud, and to amend the law of debtor and creditor.—
Leave given_ The learned gentleman postponed hit other
motions.