New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1897-04-11
NO APPEAL.
ENGLAND's CRIMINAL JUDGES HAVE THE
FINAL WORD.
A PARDON FROM THE HOME SECRETARY TIKI
ONLY RESORT AFTER A CONVICTION.

A PARDON FROM THE HOME SECRETARY 'hS
ONLY RESORT AFTER A CONVICTION.
ENGLAND onioys the strange distinction OF having
hear until now about the only civilized country IN
tho world that has no criminal court OF appeal
There is a court Of final appeal for civil cases " ue
House OF Lords, over which the Loro Cna", 49,
presIdes composed OF the members Oh ING ,e
Court OF Judicature known as the Loro 'us'i0.''
uho are not peers and likewise OF those peers VINO
have held Office In the past as Cnahceho' u -
,ard mr. az Lord Chancellor OF Ireland. as Lo'u
Ius,,co General OF Scotland or as merely H"'u
r,s,ice These ex-law lords take their places y"
the side seats arrayed In ordinary h"''e
while the Lord Justices OF Appeal arra'eu =.
and gown occupy the cross seats the Lulu ~
ceIIor likewise in his robes. directing INC p'0''
,,o,, the Woosack But nothing Of the KIND exists
80 ,.,noI cases and there is at the present
r,orrent M means Of quashing and reversing inc
daosion NJ a criminal court except by the grant
of a pardon In the Queens name 10 'ne
In instances where the innocence OF the ia''e 40"
been brought to light after the conVic.ion' ''n
obviously a most unsatisfactory metnod Oh "e"
with the affair since the concession VI '"o
grace in the name Of the Crown implies Una.
crime has really Deeh cohi"''"
gveness and mercy. ,,ov
Moreover Judges, no matter no" eminent anu Nv" ~,
anxious 10 be impartial and just. are ai'e' al ~
mortal and just as much subject 10 'o'oss"
as their fellow creatures These idioss nofa ,,.
somet,mes manifested In an exceedingly distress
ing manner upon the bench; ana "he' ."e' ~,
.h cow, y, tho ,nnostion OF sentences which, wnne
norr,,ttod nv law are altogether out OF proporto"
TO the gravity OF the offence. 1t stahos 70 ''"so
that some means should exist o' ''pa" -
wrong thus inflicted upon an unfortunate 80.
creature Sir Robert Reid who was the H''o
rovCeneral Of the last Liberal ADMINISTRATION o'u
not hesitate TO declare the other DAY III inc ou'
=, Commons during the course OF a discussion on
the subject that "ferocious and cruel puhish'nen
were sometimes inflicted from the Bench' anu e'..u
the incident where a certain judge had peeh sun.'
of the awful wickedness OF increasing prisoner
sentence by several years for impertinehce 10 MN
self during the course Of the trial Moreover Tue
Ouarter Sessions OF the various counties-triounals
which are composed OF county gentlemen ana TER
ritorial magnates-are renowned Tor the 'ei'ioie
severity with which they punish petty ohe"oe'
against property and the game laws whiie mann
testing an extraordinary leniency where crimes Vi
violence are concerned AS the matter STANDS no"
there Is no of revising these sehtehceS' "o
method OF appealing against them
,I-sTICE STEPHEN CHANGED HIS MIND.
perbops no more striking illustration of the ur-
cont necessity OF Court of Appeal for criminal
cases can be cited than a case related by Leslie
Stephen In his recently published lie OF MS
brother the late Sir James Fitzjames stephen,
who was one OF the most eminent Jurists ana
,u1Q Of
ing from an unbalanced mind during the last year
or two that he sat on the bench as Judge OF the
High Court Judcature. 1t seems that he had
sentenced a convict to certain term or imprlson-
ment AS the man was being led from the COCK
by the jalers he called out; Yer can't DO II!
tell yer yer can't do IT," Sir James, VINO was
at that time In perfect mental and physical health
was so much struck by the remark that, very
much to his credit, he had the prisoner brought
back and asked him what he meant. The convict
explained that the punishment for his offence was
a shorter term than the Judge had awarded him.
Sir James looking up the law. found that the
prisoner was right, arNi amended on the spot the
decree which he had Issued diminishing the
term OF penal servitude by no less than three
wears But had he not done So had he not con-
scented of Ills accord to modify the sentence
before the Court rose, no power on earth could
have saved the from suffering the full term
of the original sentence. unless OF course, the
Home Secretary, In the name Of the Queen. had
granted the man pardon.
Now, the Home Secretary, in the majority OF
cases. is not lawyer by profession. Moreover. he
is obviously susceptible 10 the political influences
of the party which looks upon him as one OF Its
leaders in Parliament Yet IL Is upon him, as
matters now stand, that the responsibility rests of
repairing any judicial error. by the unusual means
Of a Queens pardon. Indeed, he is in himself
species OF court Of criminal appeal, and inasmuch
as he Is possessed OF no legal knowledge, and
moreover exercises the right of granting the
Crowns pardons not through any constitutional
of affairs is extremely unsatisfactory. 1t is only
since the beginning Of the present reign that the
worthy of royal pardon has been left In the hands
of the Secretary Of State for the Home Depart
ment.
POWER TAKEN FROM THE QUEEN.
Before Queen Victoria came to the throne this
nreropative was exercised exclusively by the
ereign who likewise signed all the death warrants
OF criminals the Home Secretary merely acting In
an advisory and secretarial capacity, seeing that
the monarchs orders were carried into effect But
barely eighteen years old, 1t was felt that 1t would
be unjust to ask so Of ana sehns m or d u,
from the gallows criminals convicted of capital Of
tbe Secretary OF State for Home Department
should take charge OF the matter himself, and
of consnting her or taking her wishes upon the
subject 1t was in this way that the queen and
,ionaI prerogative of mercy and pardon which has
always been regarded as the most priceless jewel
doubtful Whether to-day with the growth of dem;
ocratc sentiment in England. the sovereign would WOULD
With the popular theory that 1t is the people rather
the h. are prsers o the
power Of pardon vested IN the hands OF one OF Its
who holds his ONCE so as cam home
held to strict account rather than IN those o, the
and who is answerabe to no one but TO her own
conscience. -, s.,,o for tho Hama Denartment
is unofiicialiy assisted in deciding upon the merits
stan But this board OF advisors which has no
Constitutional or legal exstence-indeed. 1t Is actu
eIv Ignored by the vast majority of the public-is
without any means Of enforcing It's reco,m ,h.
tions upon the Home Secretary who IS at liberty 20
ignore them or to avail himself thereof as he sees
fit .,,. 49,, ,,.,o -, a,
fairs a bin has been introduced In Parliament not
by the Government but merely by private mem
Of court Of criminal appeal for the revision, where
necessary, of all save capital sentences ~ n i
Guided Within the sphere OF the operations of the
projected court. But the only ground on Wmt IN
30 rIiament would consent to pass the measure IN
i,s first and second readings was that capital SEN
,arcae should be excluded from the consideration
&c reys,on by the future Court of Criminal Appeal:
The House took the ground that although the trial
bv Jury system is far from perfect. yet II is the
hest that has been discovered. and that II would
pN'N tiil1fIn rights of British Cltl-