Illustrated Police News, April 13, 1867, with thanks to the British Newspaper Archive, content provided by the British Library Board, all rights reserved
A dishonest cashier
Good-looking, young, intelligent, and well-dressed, James Scott was a clerk-cashier at Pryse and Redman’s, gunmakers and jewellers of Aston Street in Birmingham. His supervisor, John Pryse, was manager of the jewellery business and brother of the firm’s senior partner, Charles Pryse.
Scott made a good impression when he first joined the firm, and John Pryse – a gentle and reserved man – took him under his wing and was kind to him. All went well until Pryse noticed an irregularity in the accounts. He began to suspect Scott of dishonesty.
Pryse informed his brother and his managing partner, Richard Redman, about the discrepancy. They confronted Scott, and he admitted taking the money. He begged them to overlook the matter and promised to repay the funds, but they felt his dishonesty was too serious to ignore. Scott was told to go back to work while they pondered on an appropriate punishment.
Death of John Pryse
While this was going on, John Pryse remained at his desk. He was sorting through some rings when he heard a sudden noise. He turned round, to see Scott standing there brandishing a revolver pointed directly at him.
Charles Pryse and Richard Redman were in the next office when they heard a loud bang. They rushed in to find John Pryse on the floor covered in blood. They managed to grab the gun, and over-power Scott. They immediately called the police and a doctor, but Pryse was beyond resuscitation. One of the shots had gone straight through his heart.
Inquest
Coroner, Dr Birt Davies, presided over the inquest. After hearing from witnesses, the coroner informed the jury of their options. If a person shoots another, it is prima facie considered to be wilful murder unless there is evidence of mitigating circumstances, such as provocation.
There was no evidence that the prisoner had been provoked. He had procured the gun, loaded it with seven cartridges, and fired it at least three times. ‘A more conclusive state of things I have hardly ever seen,’ declared the coroner. The inquest jury conferred briefly, then announced their verdict: wilful murder.
Trial
The magistrates, who had to review all cases of alleged murder, agreed with the coroner’s jury and referred the prisoner to be tried at the assizes. The trial took place on 16th July 1867.
The defence barrister made a valiant attempt to persuade the assize jury that Scott had intended to kill himself and merely frighten John Pryse by doing it in front of him, but his plan had gone awry when Charles Pryse and Richard Redman entered the room. The judge had no truck with this defence, dismissing it as entirely unconvincing. The jury at the assize court reached the same conclusion as the inquest jury – it was wilful murder with no mitigating circumstances. The judge donned the black cap, sentencing the prisoner to death by hanging.
Scott’s execution was to take place in Warwick a fortnight later. Members of his family visited him in prison and found him resigned to his fate, accepting the justice of his sentence, and truly penitent.
Royal pardon
Scott’s family decided to submit a plea for clemency by gathering signatures on a petition. John Bright, Liberal MP for Birmingham, agreed to hand this to the Home Secretary, but most local people felt it had no hope of success. There was widespread astonishment, therefore, when, on the eve of the execution, it was announced that the Queen had decided to commute the sentence.
This news caused public outrage in Birmingham, reflected in thunderous editorials in the local press. The Birmingham Daily Gazette said: ‘If capital punishment is to be abolished, let it be abolished by law, and not by an irresponsible authority.’[1] Scott had been through the coroner’s court, the magistrates’ court, and the assize court, and all had deemed him guilty of wilful murder, yet unbeknownst to them, machinations in London had overturned the considered views of their local representatives.
Even The Times of London joined the fray: ‘The prerogative of pardon is itself a confession of the necessary imperfections of a formal law, but when the prerogative is abused, as it has been in this instance, it may become a question whether it would not be for the benefit of the State that it should be relinquished altogether, as some most eminent jurists have desired. There can be no doubt that certainty in punishment is a quality to be sought above most others.’[2]
The controversy over capital punishment and the exercise of royal clemency continued for decades. The Court of Criminal Appeal was established in 1907, but the death penalty was not permanently suspended until 1969.
[1] Birmingham Daily Gazette 1 Aug 1867
[2] Reprinted in Birmingham Journal 17 Aug 1867
For more information on Birt Davies and his inquests, see Probing Deaths, Saving Lives.