HC Deb 04 August 1897 vol 52 cc363-6
MR. MICHAEL DAVITT (Mayo, S.)

renewed an appeal to the Government on behalf of amnesty being granted to the few remaining Irish political prisoners. Every month that was added to the terrible punishment of these men constituted a strong argument in favour of the exercise of clemency. He called attention to a remarkable petition from Tyneside, presented in favour of clemency being extended to these men, and signed by a large number of justices of the peace, town councillors, and others who in politics were staunch supporters of the Government. Within the next few weeks there was to be a Royal visit to Ireland. Surely it would appear to the Leader of the House and to the Government that it would soften feeling considerably in Ireland, and pave the way for that visit being a pleasant one all round, if this small act of clemency were extended to the few remaining political prisoners.

THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir MATTHEW WHITE RIDLEY,) Lancashire, Blackpool

assured the hon. Member that he was right in believing that the Members of the Government in not recommending the release of these prisoners were not animated by any feeling of vengeance. ["Hear, hear!"] Reference had been made to a remarkable petition which had been received from Tyneside in favour of the prisoners. That petition was one to which a Minister of the Crown was bound to give due weight when the proper time came to take into consideration the position of these prisoners. The position he had taken up from the beginning was the same as that taken up by preceding Governments—by Mr. Gladstone and by the right hon. Gentleman who preceded him that day at the Home Office, that these prisoners should be treated exactly the same as other long-sentence prisoners; that they should be treated in a manner that was no better and no worse than others who were in prison for offences against the law. His predecessor refused, and he had himself steadily refused, to acknowledge the political character of their crimes. He had admitted that they were sentenced under the Treason Felony Act, which might have given some colour to the argument that their crime had a political motive. But what he had said from the beginning was that they must not look at the motives of these men. They had been convicted of crimes against society, which hon. Gentlemen who pleaded in their behalf were obliged to admit were serious crimes, for which they were properly sentenced; and it was altogether a misnomer to say that these men were in the strict sense of the word, or in fact in any sense of the word whatever, political prisoners. ["Hear, hear!"] The hon. Gentleman (Mr. Davitt) had alluded to the approaching Royal visit to Ireland, and said that it would be a very fit and appropriate occasion for the clemency of the Crown to be exercised. He was not prepared to deny that if these men were purely political prisoners, who had been in prison a long time, there might be something in that argument. But he certainly did want to know how he should be justified in advising the clemency of the Crown to men who had been convicted of and ought to be treated as guilty of far more serious offences than any political crime, and who ought to be dealt with, on that ground and on that ground alone. ["Hear, hear!"] Arguments had been, used which had been derived from the length of time these men had been in prison, and which naturally led them and their friends to look to the near approach of the moment when they should be released; and reference had also been made to the fact that there were now very few of them remaining in prison. These were no doubt arguments which ought to have their weight. What he had to say now, and had said before, was that these men would be treated exactly on the same footing as other long-sentence prisoners whose cases it was the duty of the Home Office from time to time to consider. They were all under life sentences and their position would be considered at the expiration of 15 years. And again—if they should be so long in prison—at the end of 20 years, unless there were exceptional circumstances to justify dealing with them before. The end of the term of 15 years had not yet arrived, but it was not very far distant. He was making no special promise on behalf of these men when he said that at the expiration of the 15 years their cases would come up for consideration in the same way as the cases of every other convict in this country came up to be considered; and when that time came he should be as ready to take into consideration all the various circumstances alluded to by the hon. Gentleman and others, exactly as he should in the case of other long-sentence prisoners. He again repeated that if he found it to be his duty then to advise any remission of the sentence, nobody would be more pleased than himself. He was afraid he could not answer more satisfactorily the appeal of the hon. Gentleman. The prisoners should be treated exactly on the same grounds as others, and that was the only safe ground upon which to treat them. ["Hear, hear!"]