§ MR. P. A. TAYLORasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether he has received Memorials from many thousands of persons, including clergymen of the Church of England, Nonconformist Ministers, and persons of high literary and scientific position, asking for a mitigation of the sentences of George William Foote and William James Ramsey, now imprisoned in Holloway Gaol on a charge of blasphemy; whether they have already 296 suffered five months' imprisonment, involving until lately confinement in their respective cells for 23 hours out of every 24, and now involving 22 hours of such solitary confinement out of each 24; and, whether he will advise the remission of the remainder of their sentences?
§ SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTSir, the Question of my hon. Friend is based upon a misconception of the duty and rights of the Home Secretary with reference to the sentence of the law. That misconception I have often endeavoured to remove, but apparently with entire want of success. It is perfectly true that I have received many Memorials on this subject. Most of those Memorials were founded upon a disapprobation of the law on which the sentence rested. I must say, as I have often done before, that this is not a matter which I can take into my consideration, either upon my own opinion, or upon that of clergymen of the Church of England, or of that of persons of high literary and scientific position. Until Parliament has altered the law, I am bound to assume that the law is right, and that those who administer it administer it rightly. If I were to take any other course, and if I were to exercise my own opinion—if I had any—on the subject, I should be transferring the power of making the law from Parliament to the Executive and to a Minister of the Crown—a course which I am quite sure my hon. Friend would be the last to desire. Then it has been said that I might deal with the sentences. But sentences must not be dealt with upon the assumption that the law is wrong, or that the jury or the Judge are wrong, but in reference to the special circumstances of the case, which might be such as to justify the Minister in recommending that the mercy of the Crown should be exercised. Let us see, then, what are the special circumstances of the present case. Nobody—I do not care whether legal persons, or belonging to the class mentioned in this Question—can judge properly of this matter who has not seen the publication. I have seen it, and I have no hesitation in saying that it is, in the most strict sense of the word, an obscene libel. It is a scandalous outrage upon public decency. That being so, the law has declared that the publication of such an obscene libel is punishable. I have 297 no authority to say that the offence shall not be punishable, nor do I think that before the expiration of less than half the period of the punishment awarded by the Court, I should be discharging, with a sound and sober judgment, the responsibility which rests upon me if I were to advise the Crown to remit the sentence.