HC Deb 06 July 1944 vol 401 cc1415-28

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Captain McEwen.]

Mr. Rhys Davies (Westhoughton)

Early this year I saw a very brief notice in our Press that a negro soldier belonging to the United States Army had been sentenced to death by an American court-martial in this country, for an offence against a woman living in Burton-on-Trent. The woman, so far as I know, is still alive. It occurred to me a rather strange state of affairs that any person should be so sentenced on British soil for an offence that is not punishable with the extreme penalty under our own law. I pursued the matter, and asked the Home Secretary whether there was a possibility of amending the law, which we passed, giving the right to a foreign Power of exercising and administering its own legal code in this country. I received a reply from him to the effect that Parliament took the responsibility in 1940 of granting to all foreign Powers in this country the right to set up their own courts of law and employ their own legal code in this country. I hope I will say nothing in an unfriendly way about the American Gov- ernment. That, of course, would be foolish; but I hope I can carry the House with me when I say that it appears at least incongruous that any man should be sentenced to death in this country, for an offence that is not so punishable under our own code of law.

I wrote to the American military authorities on the first case that came to my notice. Their reply was very courteous; they said that the sentence of death had been commuted to penal servitude and that the man had been sent home to America. Later on, however, there was a classical case which supports my view. It was in Bath, where a court-martial of the American Army sat and judged a negro, and actually sentenced him to death for what was called, in legal language, rape, against a married woman. I think the public of this country were a little shocked, not only at the sentence of death but at the manner in which that case was conducted before the court-martial. I want therefore to pay a tribute here and now to General Eisenhower, because after his attention was called to this case he not only commuted the sentence of death but, I understand, quashed the whole proceedings from beginning to end. That is to his credit; but I venture to submit that what General Eisenhower did supports my case further still. I am not going to blame the military authorities of America in this country for what they are doing; I rather complain against this Parliament for granting powers to foreign Governments to administer their own legal code in our country when this is at variance with our own.

Let me say something else in passing—and I shall be very delicate when I mention this. I have been to America many times and I know the negro problem there fairly well. Americans have said to me: "It is all right for you in Great Britain to be critical of our attitude towards the negroes because you have no negroes in your country", and there is much in that. I think I am right in saying however that in this country there is hardly anything in the nature of what is called colour discrimination as such. At any rate, it has never shown itself in an acute form here. I would not like to say that colour discrimination against the negro has weighed with American courts-martial in this country but it is true, I believe, that the majority of the men who have been so sentenced to death are American negro soldiers.

There is another point on which I want to touch. Sentence of death, or capital punishment, does not apply in every one of the States of the United States, and it is quite possible, therefore, to have an American court-martial in this country sentencing to death a negro for an offence for which he would not be so sentenced in his own State in his own land. Another point to be borne in mind in this connection is that America is the only Power in this country that adopts this method. We have the Czech, Belgian, Norwegian and other Governments here, and I understand that not one of those Governments applies any of its laws in such a way as to violate our own legal code. I do not want to dwell unduly upon this subject, but I wish there were a Minister present to answer me. I understand of course why the Minister concerned is not here, but perhaps the Patronage Secretary would like to explain his absence.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. James Stuart)

I only want to say, because I suppose the Department concerned has been warned of this Debate, that I am very sorry the Minister is not here. I suppose he is on the way.

Mr. Rhys Davies

I quite understand that. I am expecting him to come in, and in the meantime I will carry my story a little further. As stated, I asked whether it was possible to pass an amendment of the law, to preclude this sort of thing being done. I am not going to say that the military authorities of America would actually carry out the sentence of death in this country for rape, and so far as I know they have not done so in any case; but we have to remember that they have pronounced sentence of death on some of their soldiers—I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman representing the Home Office is now here—for offences that are not so punishable in our own courts of law. That is the whole of my story. I do not believe that the Government of this country will at this late stage of the war introduce amending legislation for the purpose I have in mind. I shall however make an appeal that whatever sentences are imposed by the American authorities in this country they will not violate the sense of justice prevailing in this land by executing a man for any offence, which is not so punishable under our own laws. I think that is a fair request to make. I should imagine that the American authorities would accede to a request like that if our Government made it to them. I plead therefore that that should be done.

Finally—I do not want to continue this subject too long; it is a very delicate one—this war of course will not last for ever, and as soon as the conflict in Europe ends the problem I am raising will naturally end with it. But I do suggest once again that the public mind in this country is disturbed, when it is found that a person who happens to belong to another nationality is sentenced to death in this country for an offence which is not so punishable by our own laws. Therefore I gave notice that I would raise this matter on the Adjournment, and I have done so. I repeat that I know the American people fairly well. I have a large number of friends there and I think a great deal of them. I think they possess some qualities that are really superb. I do not want anything therefore I have said to disturb the good relations between this country and the Americans. I appeal to them, in all they do in this country, under their own courts-martial not to offend the susceptibilities of our people, and that above all else they will not carry out sentences of death on any of their soldiers when the offence is not so punishable under our laws.

Mr. Bowles (Nuneaton)

Is it not a fact that on conviction by a United States court-martial for this offence, it is not a question of death being the maximum penalty, but that the death penalty has to be imposed?

Mr. Rhys Davies

I understand that is so, that it is the automatic penalty under American law for the offence of rape. I understand that if courts-martial sentence at all, they must do so in that way. Hence I am in a little difficulty, as I am sure the House must be, in my appeal.

Sir Patrick Hannon (Birmingham, Moseley)

I understand that you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, have ruled this Debate as being in Order on the Adjournment to-day. I suggest with great respect that in bringing a matter of this kind before the House of Commons, we are dealing with questions of a subtle and delicate character, affecting an Ally here in this country, whose presence we are proud to have and an Ally, who is taking an active, co-operative and constructive part in the present struggle for the freedom of humanity. We ought to deal with this matter with a good deal of discretion.

Mr. Davies

I have done so.

Sir P. Hannon

I am sure the hon. Gentleman would deal with it in that way, but what right have we in this House of Commons to dictate to the American military authorities in this country how they are to deal with crimes committed by their Forces in this country? I understand that as soon as their military organisation was set up in this country, the United States Command became the competent authorities to deal with offences committed by their own troops. How can we intervene in matters which come under their laws, and are punishable under the laws of the United States? How can we suggest that because in one particular State capital punishment is not adopted in the United States, we ought to take that as an example in dealing with matters of this kind? I hope my right hon. Friend will have something to say, because this is a subject which should be treated with great discretion and with great reserve. We may do more harm than good in dealing with a subject of this kind.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Major Milner)

I do not know whether the hon. Member was appealing to me. I can only rule that the matter does seem to be in Order. I entirely agree that the matter is of some delicacy, and no doubt the hon. Member will use very great discretion in the remarks he makes. But the subject is, according to the Rules of the House, in Order, on this occasion.

Sir P. Hannon

With the greatest respect, is it in Order to discuss in this House a matter of the policy adopted by a foreign Government with whom we are in alliance, in relation to their own military organisation occurring through the processes of war? Even if the House of Commons decided that intervention should take place by the Government, how could the Government intervene without contravening the understanding already established with the United States?

Mr. Bowles

Is not the position that in October or November, 1942, this House gave the United States authority to deal with their own people, and the argument used by the Home Office was that, on certain matters, punishment would be harsher than it was in this country, which was one of the most fantastic arguments ever used by the Government?

Mr. Rhys Davies

May I ask whether a Member of the House of Commons is not entitled to raise an issue in this Assembly about any subject that arises within the United Kingdom? Does the hon. Gentleman argue that we are not entitled to raise issues that occur on our own soil?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker

I assume there is some Ministerial responsibility, in part at any rate, on some Member of the Government in this country, because the matter which the hon. Member is raising is taking place in this country. I assume that he is alleging that there is some Ministerial responsibility somewhere in relation to the affairs of an Ally in this country, and on that ground is raising the matter.

Sir P. Hannon

To what Minister on the Front Bench can a matter of this kind be addressed? I understand that we have handed over complete authority for the administration of military organisation in connection with the United States in this country, to the United States. To whom should a Question be put to remedy any grievance? It is putting the House of Commons in a most difficult position.

Mr. Rhys Davies

May I remind the hon. Member that I have already put several Questions to the Home Office on this very subject, and that the Home Secretary has accepted responsibility for replying fully—and delicately too?

Sir P. Hannon

Have we not, by Act of this House, handed over to the United States authorities in this country responsibility for their own military organisation?

Mr. Bowles

Surely the hon. Member will remember the matter of the Polish soldiers who were under arrest in this country? By reverse Lend-Lease we are making certain financial contributions from the taxpayers to the American Government. On the question of the Polish soldiers, it was then ruled that the matter was within the competence of the House to discuss on the Adjournment.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker

I can only rule that in so far as the hon. Member has gone, the matter would appear to be in Order, as apparently there is a residuum of responsibility on the Government of this country. I think, if I recollect aright, there is some way in which these matters are reported to the Home Office. Therefore, I think, there is some connection.

Mr. Gallachcr (Fife, West)

On a point of Order. It seems to me that this House, by the Act which it passed, gave the American authorities extra-territorial rights in this country; and where extraterritorial rights exist, it seems to me that if anything is done, it should be done through the Foreign Secretary.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker

That is not a point of Order.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Peake)

I must apologise, most humbly, to my hon. Friend the Member for Westhoughton (Mr. Rhys Davies). Through some breakdown in the usual machinery, I was engaged, with my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, in receiving a deputation on another matter in which the House is very much interested, the registration of Service voters. As soon as I got the message that the Adjournment Motion was on I came here; but, unfortunately, I was too late to hear the observations of my hon. Friend. I have, however, been furnished with a note of the points he made. On the question of the jurisdiction of the House to deal with this matter, my hon. Friend has, as he pointed out, put a series of questions to the Home Secretary in regard to death sentences passed by foreign courts, most particularly by United States courts-martial, which have been accepted by the Chair, and which my right hon. Friend has answered in the House. Therefore, it would not seem to me inappropriate that the hon. Gentleman should raise this question—as he gave notice that he would do—on the Adjournment.

If I understand my hon. Friend's points correctly, he has in mind two matters. The first is, whether the United States courts-martial in this country ought to have power to pass sentence of death on United States soldiers for offences, such as rape, for which sentence of death cannot be imposed under British law. In the second place—and perhaps he will confirm me if I am right in this, because I am not quite sure whether he raised the matter to-day—he asks, if United States courts-martial have this power, are they not using it in practice for the purpose of colour discrimination by sentencing only negroes to death for such offences?

Mr. Rhys Davies

I said, on that latter point, that there was a feeling that the race discrimination known to exist in some parts of the United States might be brought into play in this matter.

Mr. Peake

I am obliged to my hon. Friend. He raised the colour question in, at any rate, one or two of his Questions, and 'I felt fairly confident that he would mention it to-day. Under the Act of 1942, on which there was considerable discussion in this House, we gave to the United States authorities exclusive criminal jurisdiction over members of their Armed Forces. Therefore, United States soldiers who commit criminal offences in this country can be tried only by United States tribunals, and must be dealt with according to the law of the United States. It was made perfectly plain to Parliament during the Second Reading Debate, both by my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General and by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, that American military law was, in some respects, more severe than our own. The Home Secretary specifically said that the penalty for rape was death or imprisonment for life. I may say that this offence is regarded more seriously in the United States than it is here; it is also regarded more seriously in France, than it is in this country. In the United States, even in peace-time, civilians can be sentenced to death for rape, under Federal criminal law. No objection was raised to that statement; and, indeed, the assurance that the United States law was in some respects stricter than our own was received by the House, at that time, with some measure of satisfaction, when fears had been expressed lest American soldiers might be dealt with too leniently by their own courts-martial. It may be suggested that the United States Government should be asked——

Earl Winterton (Horsham and Worthing)

I am not proposing to go over again the Debate which took place on that occasion—indeed, I think it would be out of Order to do so—but I think that my right hon. Friend has given a rather wrong impression of it. The objection that was taken was to conferring these powers at all on another Government, even a friendly Government. That was the objection taken by some of us, and there was a heated argument about it.

Mr. Peake

I agree with my Noble Friend that it would be out of Order to go once more over the points raised in the Debate, and it is true that there were misgivings expressed as to the powers conferred by the Act. It may be suggested that the United States Government should be asked to give an undertaking, in similar terms to those given in 1940 by the other Allied Governments established in this country, that sentence of death on a United States soldier shall not be carried out without the concurrence of His Majesty's Government. That was the undertaking given in 1940 by the Allied Governments in this country.

Sir P. Hannon

Including the United States?

Mr. Peake

No, they were not in this country at the time. The United States Government were not asked to give such an undertaking when the 1942 Act was passed and I do not think it would be appropriate at this time to ask them to give such an undertaking. An analogy cannot properly be drawn between the position of the United States Government, who have been given exclusive jurisdiction over their soldiers, and the position of other Governments, who have only concurrent jurisdiction and have agreed that their tribunals shall not deal with cases of manslaughter, murder, or rape. Any sentence of death passed by a United States court-martial is subject to review by a higher authority. The House may be aware of that, because of the publicity which has been given recently to the case of a soldier named Leroy Henry. It was announced only a few days ago that the Supreme Com- mander had disapproved both the findings and the sentence of the court in that case, and the soldier has rejoined his unit. My hon. Friend is, I think, opposed to the death penalty as such.

Mr. Rhys Davies

I am not raising the matter on that account.

Mr. Peake

It may be suggested that a sentence of death, passed by a United States court-martial, should not be carried out in this country. The suggestion has been made that persons so sentenced to death should be taken back to the United States for the execution of the sentence. But it was definitely thought, first, that this would not be a fair and proper thing to do as the delay between the passing of the sentence and its execution would be far too long; and, in the second place, that public opinion might not be satisfied that the sentence had, in fact, been carried out.

With regard to the second, and, I think, the more difficult, question which the hon. Gentleman raised in his supplementary questions, of coloured soldiers, my right hon. Friend answered a Question put by my hon. Friend on 20th June. My hon. Friend sought to inquire, first, how many sentences of death had been passed and how many had been carried out, and the answer was that seven death sentences had been carried out, that none of those death sentences was in respect of the crime of rape, that each was in respect of the crime of murder.

My hon. Friend sought an answer as to the numbers of coloured and white soldiers respectively who had been so sentenced, and my right hon. Friend did not think it right to give the answer to that Question. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why."] We have an absolute assurance from the United States authorities that there is no colour discrimination of any sort or kind either in their law or practice, and my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary thought fit to accept that assurance and did not think that the detailed numbers should be given in the House or discussed——

Mr. Rhys Davies

May I say I have never pursued this subject in regard to cases of murder? My point has always been in respect of sentences of death for offences not so punishable under our own law.

Sir P. Hannon

Does my hon. Friend consider that the murder of the moral character of a woman is not worthy of the same punishment as the murder of a person?

Mr. Rhys Davies

That is not the point at issue. If the hon. Gentleman had his way, if I understand his spirit, he would hang a person for rape in this country.

Sir P. Hannon

I would.

Mr. Rhys Davies

Very well, but that is not the law, and a man cannot be hanged in this country for rape.

Mr. Peake

As I understand my hon. Friend's intervention, he was satisfied by the reply he got that all sentences of death passed on United States soldiers have been in respect of the crime of murder.

Mr. Rhys Davies

That is right.

Mr. Peake

My hon. Friend asked how many soldiers sentenced to death and executed by the United States military authorities in this country were coloured and white respectively, and the Home Secretary gave the answer: I am assured and I am satisfied that in This matter there is no discrimination on grounds of race or colour. In my view, no public interest would be served by publishing the information asked for by my hon. Friend, especially as the whole matter is entirely within the competence of the United States authorities; and, accordingly, I am not prepared to approach the United States Authorities on this question."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 20th June; Vol. 401, c. 42.]

Mr. Barr (Coatbridge)

I apologise for intervening, but I had occasion, as convenor of the League for the Abolition of Capital Punishment, to go into this question as regards the Southern States of America. It was found that there had been, lately, a diminution of lynching in the Southern States, but there was still a very large number lynched, and the number of white men lynched was very small in proportion to the number of black men lynched.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker

I do not think that question really arises.

Mr. Peake

I think my hon. Friend's point is really irrelevant to the matter we are discussing. I will ask the House to be content with the attitude taken by the Home Secretary.

Mr. Barr

It was the fact that my right hon. Friend said there was no difference in practice, that brought me to my feet, but I do not wish to press the point further.

Mr. Peake

We have this assurance and, in point of fact, anybody studying this matter in the newspapers can see for himself that persons sentenced to death have by no means been all of one colour. We should be well advised to leave this matter where it rests. At the time the 1942 Act was passed, grave misgivings were expressed on all sides of the House as to what the effect of it would be. There were forebodings, for example, that British subjects would be hauled before American courts-martial as witnesses and browbeaten and so forth. We have now had two years' experience of the working of the Act, and I should like to say that there has been the closest collaboration between the United States authorities and the British authorities at all points, from the highest level, where we are in close contact with them at the Home Office, right down, through the liaison officers, to the ordinary police-constable in the districts where the American Army has been stationed. We have derived nothing but satisfaction from the collaboration we have had with the United States authorities in the working of the Act, and I honestly think that the House, being assured that the forebodings expressed in 1942 have not been in the least degree fulfilled, should leave the matter there.

Earl Winterton

I cannot allow the last remarks of the Under-Secretary to go unanswered. As one of those who introduced this subject at the time of the passing of the Act, I want to make it clear, speaking on behalf of all my hon. Friends who opposed the Bill, that our objections were quite different. We said that it was in the interest neither of a great and friendly country—the United States—nor of ourselves, that, for the first time in British history, an Allied country should be given complete rights of this kind in this country, unless reciprocal treatment were accorded to us in the United States. That has not been accorded, but I hope, on behalf of my hon. Friends in all parts of the House who made the original objection, that this great and friendly Government, whose nationals are fighting so gallantly by our side in Normandy, will see that there is feeling on this matter in this country and will no longer wish to have the Act continued.

Mr. Bowles

The Under-Secretary, on the question of sentences of death for murder, said that his right hon. Friend was satisfied, in this matter, that there was no discrimination between black soldiers and white, but the hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. Rhys Davies) raised a case which is not one of murder at all. I would like to know whether the right hon. Gentleman accepts the view that there is no racial discrimination or colour bar in the United States, and even between one State and another, so far as the question of rape is concerned.

Mr. Peake

I can give my hon. Friend an answer in one sentence. The assurance we received covers both types of cases.

Question, "That this House do now adjourn," put, and agreed to.