GRAHAM, THE POLITE JUDGE.
Just before my time the punishment of death was inflicted for almost
every offence of stealing which would now be thought sufficiently
dealt with by a sentence of a week's imprisonment. The struggle to
turn King's evidence was great, and it was almost a competitive
examination to ascertain who knew most about the crime; and he, being
generally the worst of the gang, was accepted accordingly.
I remember when I was a child three men, named respectively Marshall,
Cartwright, and Ingram, were charged with having committed a burglary
in the house of a gentleman named Pym, who lived in a village in
Hertfordshire, Marshall being at that time, and Cartwright having
previously been, butler in the gentleman's service. Ingram had been a
footman in London.
The burglary was not in itself of an aggravated character. Plate only
was stolen, and that had been concealed under the gravel bed of a
little rivulet which ran through the grounds.
No violence or threat of violence had been offered to any inmate of
the house, yet the case was looked upon as serious because of the
position of trust which had been held by the two butlers.
Ingram was admitted as King's evidence. The butlers were convicted,
sentenced to death, and hanged, whilst Ingram was, according to
universal practice, set at liberty. Before the expiration of a
year, however, he was convicted of having stolen a horse, and as
horse-stealing was a capital offence at that time, he suffered the
penalty of death at Hereford.
It was a curious coincidence that only a year or two afterwards a man
named Probert, who had given King's evidence upon which the notorious
Thurtell and Hunt were convicted of the brutal murder of Weare
and executed, was also released, and within a year convicted of
horse-stealing and hanged.
An old calendar for the Assize at Lincoln, which I give as an
Appendix, reminds me of the condition of the law and of its victims
at that time. At every assize it was like a tiger let loose upon
the district. If a man escaped the gallows, he was lucky, while the
criminals were by no means the hardened ruffians who had been trained
in the school of crime; they were mostly composed of the most ignorant
rural labourers--if, indeed, in those days there were any degrees of
ignorance, when to be able to read a few words by spelling them was
considered a prodigious feat.
Jurors often endeavoured to mitigate the terrors of the law by finding
that the stolen property, however valuable it might be, was of less
value than five shillings. May the recording angel "drop a tear over
this record of perjury and blot it out for ever."
It was in those days that Mr. Justice Graham was called upon to
administer the law, and on one occasion particularly he vindicated his
character for courtesy to all who appeared before him. He was a man
unconscious of humour and yet humorous, and was not aware of the
extreme civility which he exhibited to everybody and upon all
occasions, especially to the prisoner.
People went away with a sense of gratitude for his kindness, and when
he sentenced a batch of prisoners to death he did it in a manner that
might make any one suppose, if he did not know the facts, that they
had been awarded prizes for good conduct.
He was firm, nevertheless--a great thing in judges, if not accompanied
with weakness of mind. I may add that there was a singular precision
in his mode of expression as well as in his ideas.
At a country assize, where he was presiding in the Crown Court, a
man was indicted for murder. He pleaded "Not guilty." The evidence
contained in the depositions was terribly clear, and, of course, the
judge, who had perused them, was aware of it.
The case having been called on for trial, counsel for the prosecution
applied for a postponement on the ground of the absence of a most
material witness for the Crown.
I should mention that in those days counsel were not allowed to speak
for the prisoner, but the judge was always in theory supposed to watch
the case on his behalf. In the absence of a _material_ witness the
prisoner would be acquitted.
The learned Mr. Justice Graham asked the accused if he had any
objection to the case being postponed until the next assizes, on the
ground, as the prosecution had alleged, that their most material
witness could not be produced. His lordship put the case as somewhat
of a misfortune for the prisoner, and made it appear that it would be
postponed, if he desired it, as a favour to _him_.
Notwithstanding the judge's courteous manner of putting it, the
prisoner most strenuously objected to any postponement. It was not
for him to oblige the Crown at the expense of a broken neck, and he
desired above all things to be tried in accordance with law. He stood
there on his "jail delivery."
Graham was firm, but polite, and determined to grant the postponement
asked for. In this he was doubtless right, for the interests of
justice demanded it. But to soften down the prisoner's disappointment
and excuse the necessity of his further imprisonment, his lordship
addressed him in the following terms, and in quite a sympathetic
manner:--
"Prisoner, I am extremely sorry to have to detain you in prison, but
_common humanity_ requires that I should not let you be tried in the
absence of an important witness for the prosecution, although at
the same time I can quite appreciate your desire to have your case
speedily disposed of; one does not like a thing of this sort hanging
over one's head. But now, for the sake of argument, prisoner, suppose
I were to try you to-day in the absence of that material witness, and
yet, contrary to your expectations, they were to find you guilty. What
then? Why, in the absence of that material witness, I should have to
sentence you to be hanged on Monday next. That would be a painful
ordeal for both of us.
"But now let us take the other alternative, and let us suppose that if
your trial had been put off, and the material witness, when called,
could prove something in your favour--this sometimes happens--and that
that something induced the jury to acquit you, what a sad thing that
would be! It would not signify to you, because you would have been
hanged, and would be dead!"
Here his lordship paused for a considerable time, unable to suppress
his emotion, but, having recovered himself, continued,--
"But you must consider what my feelings would be when I thought I had
hanged an innocent man!"
At the next assizes the man was brought up, the material witness
appeared; the prisoner was found guilty, and hanged.
The humane judge's feelings were therefore spared.
At the Old Bailey he was presiding during a sessions which was rather
light for the times, there being less than a score left for execution
under sentence of death. There were, in fact, only sixteen, most of
them for petty thefts.
His lordship, instead of reading the whole of the sixteen names,
omitted one, and read out only fifteen. He then politely, and with
exquisite precision and solemnity, exhorted them severally to prepare
for the awful doom that awaited them the following Monday, and
pronounced on each the sentence of death.
They left the dock.
After they were gone the jailer explained to his lordship that there
had been _sixteen_ prisoners capitally convicted, but that his
lordship had omitted the name of one of them, and he would like to
know what was to be done with him.
"What is the prisoner's name?" asked Graham.
"John Robins, my lord."
"Oh, bring John Robins back--by all means let John Robins step
forward. I am obliged to you."
The culprit was once more placed at the Bar, and Graham, addressing
him in his singularly courteous manner, said apologetically,--
"John Robins, I find I have accidentally omitted your name in my list
of prisoners doomed to execution. It was quite accidental, I assure
you, and I ask your pardon for my mistake. I am very sorry, and can
only add that you will be hanged with the rest."