§ Mr. BRIDGEMANasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if any representation was made to him, before the visit paid by him and the Chancellor of the Exchequer to Dartmoor, that the case of David Davies required revision?
§ The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Churchill)Yes, Sir, I had received a petition from the convict himself. I had had before me the facts of his history and of his latest offence, and I had already decided on his early release. I will send the hon. Member a copy of a memorandum I prepared some time ago in this case, which will give him the fullest information.
§ Mr. BRIDGEMANWas the right hon. Gentleman accompanied by the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the 24th October at the time when he made the inquiry on the spot at Dartmoor?
§ Mr. CHURCHILLNo, Sir. I decided to review the sentence I think more than four months before I visited Dartmoor with the Chancellor.
§ Mr. BRIDGEMANIs it not a fact that the right hon. Gentleman has said that he went into the case on the 24th October, when he was at Dartmoor, and, if so, will he ask the Chancellor to correct the misrepresentations he made as a result of that visit?
§ Mr. CHURCHILLI will send the hon. Gentleman the Memorandum, which deals very fully with the whole of the proceedings for which I am responsible. With regard to what the hon. Member says about 878 the Chancellor of the Exchequer, I am not aware that any such misrepresentation exists.
§ Mr. BRIDGEMANasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if the whole record of David Davies was before the Home Office authorities when he was sentenced to a term of preventive detention; if he examined that record before deciding to release him; and if he is now able to give to the House the promised information as to the movements of Davies since his release?
§ Mr. CHURCHILLThe Home Office is not concerned with a prisoner's record be fore he is sentenced. I examined Davies's record very carefully before deciding to release him. I am glad to say that nothing has come to my knowledge which confirms the opinion held in certain quarters that he was enticed away for a political purpose. I do not quarrel with the hon. Gentleman for his question; but the case is now sub judice, and, in the interests of justice, I am sure the House will not wish further reference to be made to it at present.
§ Mr. LEEWill the right hon. Gentleman say in what quarter was the opinion held that Davies had been enticed away for political purposes?
§ Mr. CHURCHILLNo, I do not propose to. It should be enough for the hon. Member that I have had evidence before me to the effect that the opinion was held in quarters competent to judge. I am bound to say that nothing has occurred to confirm that suspicion, at least, nothing has come to my notice. I take this opportunity of making a disclaimer which I am sure will put the hon. Gentleman and others who may have qualms of conscience at ease.
§ Mr. CHURCHILLYes, it was.
§ Mr. BRIDGEMANI wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he cannot now see his way to entirely withdraw the charge? I asked him a few days ago on behalf of my constituency to do so, and he then stated that the matter was sub judice. I ask him to entirely withdraw the charge if it has no foundation.
§ Mr. CHURCHILLI can add nothing to what I have said in my answer, which, I think, should have the effect of setting hon. Members' minds at rest.
§ Mr. ORMSBY-GOREWhom does the right hon. Gentleman suspect of enticing this man away for political purposes?
§ Mr. CHURCHILLIt is always a very bad thing to harbour suspicions, and nothing could be more foolish than to state your suspicions after the original ground for them has been considerably modified.
§ Mr. ORMSBY-GORENot withdrawn.
§ Mr. LANE-FOXWill the right hon. Gentleman in future refrain from making such allegations?
§ Mr. CHURCHILLI shall make no promise about the future.