The Birkenhead News and Wirral General Advertiser. — 1883-11-10 (Birkenhead, Merseyside, England)

THE XENV EXECUTIONER.  Biuns, the new hangman, seems to have conducted his first execution in a satisfactory way. His victim was one Henry Powell, who had murdered the son of his employer, a builder. The condemned man conducted himself with the utmost fortitude and died avowing himself an atheist, though he had listened respectfully, if unmoved, to the prison chaplain. Thus, Binns first execution is likely to be strongly impressed on the public mind, which has, naturally, been peculiarly shocked. We are told that the way adopted was in most respects exactly the same as that followed by Marwood. The way of pinioning was precisely the same— namely, by a broad strap round the body, to which the elbows were buckled by smaller straps. The rope was of the same size as that used by Marwood, and ran through a metal eye, thus forming a noose, which was hooked to the beam , in readiness, and it took but a few seconds to adjust it round the neck. The two chief dopartures from Marwood's practice were the position of the rope round the neck and the length of the drop. Binne placed the eye, or knot, of the rope on the right side of the neck, Marwcod always placing it on the left. The length of the drop, as already stated, was 7 feet 6 inches, Marwood usually allowing a longer fall. Some time ago a writer in one of the magaoines discussed the question whether there ought to be a common hangman. He answered the proposition in the negative, principally on the ground that it was a mistake to single out one wretched man for notoriety and ignominy, his contention being that a common hangman must necessarily, by virtue of his office and its horrible associations, become base, depraved and bloody-minded. He ridiculed the idea not Calcraft was benevolently disposed in his private capacity, representing him to have been a cold and callous individual, whose brutal indifference to the sufferings of his subjects was only paralleled by that of his successor, the late Marwood. Why, then, he argued should the State insist on making one man horrible in the eyes of the world and a moraj wreck. At the same time he admitted that the abolition of hanging, public sentiment being what it is, was out of the question. His alternative course for that which he so vigorously denounced was that there should be no hangman at all, but that the duty of despatching murderers should be entrnsted to the officials af the various prisons, who should be made to conduct executions—the management of which should be part of their regular duty--in such a way that it would be impossible to say who was the actual execn tioner. He considered that if that course were adopted, not only would the glaring evils referred to above be done away with, but we should have none of those autobiographical sketches of hangman which are now given with unfailing regularity, to the further vitiation of a morbid taste, whenever a sensational execution has taken place. There is, no doubt, a great deal to be said in favour of the scheme which he propounded, but he s.:‘emed, in our opinion, to dispose of the case as it applied t 3 the prison officials too quickly and not to show an adequato realisation of how perniciously they would be effected if the propositions he submitted were carried into effect.