HC Deb 21 August 1883 vol 283 cc1492-4
MR. MACFARLANE

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, If his attention has been called to the feeling expressed in public meetings in Scotland in reference to what is deemed the unnecessary severity of the sentence passed upon the rioters in the recent disturbance at Strome Ferry; whether it is true that these men have had their hair cropped, and are treated in all respects as common felons; and, whether, as the rioters expressed before the Court their penitence for the offence, and were strongly recommended to mercy by the jury, he is now prepared to advise the remission of their Sentence?

MR. DICK-PEDDIE

Before the right hon. and learned Gentleman answers the Question, I wish to put to him a supplementary one—namely, Whether, having regard to the admission by the Lord Advocate, in replying to a Question put to him some days ago by the hon. Member for Wigton (Sir Herbert Maxwell), that the legality of Sunday trading in Scotland is an open question, and to the circumstances that the men convicted in this case acted on the belief that such traffic is illegal, and were seeking to prevent what they regarded as a violation of the law, he does not see ground upon which to recommend Her Majesty to mitigate the sentence passed upon them, especially seeing they have already been undergoing sentence for a month?

SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT

Sir, as this is a matter of a good deal of interest, I may be allowed to answer it somewhat carefully. As regards the first part of the Question of the hon. Member, I cannot concur in that part of the Question at all. I cannot agree with the consideration that a criminal sentence should be influenced by the feeling expressed at public meetings. Indeed, I must point out to the hon. Member that one of the great obstacles to the mitigation of this sentence has been found in the ill-advised speaking at these public meetings. So long as the unwise and ill-judged language of the friends of the prisoners, amounting at least to a palliation, if not to a justification of the offences, is continued, so long it will be impossible, with due respect to law, to exercise a leniency which would only be an encouragement to fresh outrages. It must be remembered that this offence was not the result of a sudden impulse, but of a deliberate plan. The original line of defence was an absolute justification by the accused of their right to vindicate the observance of the Day of Rest by a violent and organized riot. In answering the Question of my hon. Friend behind me, without entering on the question of the law as to the observance of the Sabbath, it cannot be al- lowed that this is the proper manner to vindicate this law. I cannot, therefore, regard the original sentence as unduly severe, as it was absolutely necessary to make these men, and everyone else, clearly to understand that this was a thing the law would not suffer, and would severely punish. That is my answer to the first part of the Question; but I turn with more satisfaction to the second part, and my answer to that is this. If it be true that these men, as stated, after their conviction expressed their sincere regret for the offence into which they had been betrayed, and if that view of their conduct is frankly accepted by those who advocate their cause, then, and not till then, the question of leniency will arise. If the matter is dealt with in this spirit, I shall be prepared at the expiration of two mouths of the sentence to consult with the learned Judge as to whether the sentence can safely be mitigated.

MR. DICK-PEDDIE

asked if the Home Secretary would explain how it was possible that the advocates of these men in Scotland were to express their concurrence with the prisoners in their expressions of regret—in what form, and through what organ, could this be done?

MR. MACFARLANE

asked, as to the silence of these people and their friends, how long it was to be maintained before the Home Secretary would come to the conclusion that they had exercised a proper reticence? The right hon. and learned Gentleman was understood to say he would consider the case at the end of two months. Did that depend upon silence being maintained in the meantime?

SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT

I did not say anything about silence at all. What I say is, that it would be a very difficult thing in dealing with a sentence when at public meetings a great many people are maintaining that nothing wrong has been done. As long as that continued it would be impossible to do anything in the way of mitigation of sentence, as it is absolutely certain that the same thing would be done again. In the latter part of the Question the hon. Member speaks of the penitence and regret of these prisoners at the offence they committed; and, if that be so, it may be safe, with a due respect for the law, to consider their sentence.