HC Deb 20 July 1882 vol 272 cc1095-7
MR. J. G. TALBOT

asked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether he has observed that, under the "block system," it has been impossible for the House to have an opportunity of considering the Imprisonment for Contumacy Bill, which has come down from the Upper House; whether he can suggest any mode by which that Bill can be considered; and, whether, failing any such opportunity, he will recommend to the Crown the exercise of the Royal prerogative, in order to determine the imprisonment of a clergyman, not charged with any offence against the Criminal Law, which has now lasted for sixteen months?

MR. MORGAN LLOYD

asked the First Lord of the Treasury, If he will extend the facilities asked for the discussion of the Imprisonment for Contumacy Bill to the discussion of the Contumacious Clerks Bill, so that the whole question may be disposed of?

MR. GLADSTONE

Sir, I must answer the Questions separately, because, although they refer to the same subject-matter, I think the two Bills mentioned are materially different in the purpose they have in view. In reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford University (Mr. J. G. Talbot), I believe this Bill to which he refers has come from the Upper House, and which, although it alters the general law, alters it with the special view to the case of a particular individual—the Rev. Mr. Green—apparently under the idea of releasing that gentleman from prison, on the ground that, whatever may have been the merits or demerits of his original conduct, he has suffered severely for that conduct, and it would be a becoming act to release him. In these circumstances, I see it stated by my hon. Friend that the Bill has been blocked. Without presuming to censure any Member, I would make a respectful appeal to anyone who may have blocked it, and would represent that it hardly seems satisfactory that, where the question is the continuance of imprisonment—which, on the one hand, is thought just and proper, and, on the other, harsh and improper—it should be decided virtually without discussion by the simple blocking of a Bill, and the prolongation of the imprisonment thus obtained. I cannot help hoping that clemency may touch the heart of any Gentleman who may have blocked that Bill, and that he may be induced to allow the House to deal with it. I know enough of the good temper and good feeling of the House to be sure that they would not mind the inconvenience of dealing with the Bill at a late hour in order to give an impartial judgment upon it. As to the second part of the Question, I may say it is not within my recollection that the Prime Minister has ever intermeddled in any way in regard to the exercise of the Royal Prerogative. So far as I know the method of all Governments, it is desired to keep out of the political arena all questions of this nature; and, therefore, I am not prepared to give any answer to that part of the Question. With regard to the other Bill, it aims at an alteration of the law, I believe, on the same subject-matter; but it has not the same direct reference to the case of this gentleman as the first Bill has. It certainly does not come to us in the same way, commended not only by the assent of the other House, but by the fact that this Bill, being an ecclesiastical subject-matter, was introduced by the heads of the Episcopal Body, and, therefore, has very special claims upon our attention. I should be very glad if my hon. Friend can obtain a discussion of his Bill; but I am afraid, if I were to entangle myself by giving any promise as to the discussion of the Bill, I should have a good many other claims made upon me in the same direction.

SIR HUSSEY VIVIAN

said, the block of the Bill from the House of Lords stood in his name, and he should be happy to remove that block if any assurance were given that the Bill should come on at a time when it could be properly discussed.

MR. MORGAN LLOYD

had also blocked the Bill, so that it might not be smuggled through. His only desire was that it should be fairly discussed.

MR. J. G. TALBOT

understood the right hon. Gentleman to say that Ministers did not interfere in matters of this kind.

MR. GLADSTONE

said, the Question related to the exercise of the Prerogative of Mercy, and all cases of that nature were dealt with departmentally, and not by the Cabinet as a whole.

MR. J. G. TALBOT

said, that, as he understood the Premier to refer to the Home Secretary as the proper authority to be appealed to in regard to the exercise of the Royal Prerogative, he would on Monday put a Question to the right hon. and learned Gentleman.