§ Mr. Leslie HaleI desire, Mr. Speaker, to ask for the guidance of the Chair in respect of a Private Notice Question which J put down to the Colonial Secretary, but 38 which I understand has been ruled out of Order. I apologise to you for the shortness of the notice of my intention to raise this point. The Question which I submitted was as follows:
To ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies "—
§ Mr. SpeakerThat is exactly what the hon. Member must not do. He must not read out a Question which has already been ruled out of Order. To do so would be most disorderly.
§ Mr. HaleI gave notice of my intention to submit the matter to you. The purport of the Question, which I assumed was ruled out of Order from the Table provisionally as affecting the Royal Prerogative, was that the Colonial Secretary claims that he has no right or power to interfere with that Prerogative, by virtue of the terms of appointment of the Governor and Commander-in-Chief of the Gold Coast. The Question involved also the fate of four condemned men, who have already been taken to the place of execution six times, and are due to be executed tomorrow. In those circumstances I make no apology for submitting to you one or two matters which I feel are of great importance. I hope it will be permissible for me to say how very grateful I was to have the assistance of the learning, the wealth of learning, and the courtesy of the Clerk of the House. It was only at Eleven o'Clock that this matter was called to my notice as being so very urgent.
I desire respectfully to submit to you that the ruling of Erskine May that a matter affecting the Royal Prerogative cannot be raised on the Floor of this House is erroneous. It has been raised on a number of previous occasions in this House. There was the case of Israel Lipski in 1887, when a full answer was given by the Secretary of State for Home Affairs. It was done in the case of Mrs. Maybrick, in 1889, when the Home Secretary refused to give an answer. It was done more fully and completely in a case of very material importance, involving the proposed execution of men in Ireland. In that case the question was not that the. Secretary of State for Home Affairs advised His Majesty direct; it was a question of the Secretary of State making a recommendation to the Viceroy or Lord 39 Lieutenant of Ireland. Those were circumstances which are, I respectfully submit, completely parallel with the position in which the Secretary of State for the Colonies can give advice to the Governor and Commander-in-Chief of the Gold Coast forces.
I must also make this point. I have referred to the terms of appointment of the Governor and Commander in Chief of the Gold Coast. I find that he was appointed by Royal Warrant and under His Majesty's Sign Manual. That was not until 19th February, 1946, which is 14 months after these men were condemned. There must therefore have been an interregnum in which the whole discretion in this matter was vested in the Secretary of State for the Colonies. I think it might be right if I read here the terms of the Memorandum attached to the Royal Warrant. It says:
§ "AT THE COURT AT BUCKINGHAM PALACE.
§ The 19th day of February, 1946. Present,
§
THE KING'S MOST EXCELLENT MAJESTY IN COUNCIL.
Whereas there was this day read at the Board a letter to the Lord President of the Council from the Right Honourable George Hall, Line of His Majesty's Principal Secretaries of State, transmitting the Draft of Letters Patent Constituting the Office of Governor and the Commander-in-Chief of the Gold Coast Colony and Ashanti and making certain provisions for the Government thereof:
His Majesty, having taken the same into consideration, was pleased, by and with the advice of His Privy Council, to approve thereof, and to order, as it is hereby ordered, that the Right Honourable George Hall, one of His Majesty's Principal Secretaries of State, do cause a Warrant to be prepared for His Majesty's Royal Signature, for passing under the Great Seal Letters Patent conformable to the said Draft (which is hereunto annexed).
§ The matter was sent by the Privy Council to the then Secretary of State for the Colonies, who was responsible for preparing the terms of appointment. The Colonial Laws Validity Act of 1865, which is very material in this matter, gives Colonial Legislatures power to legislate on these matters. The terms of appointment of Governors-General provide that the Government, in exercising the Royal Prerogative, should take the advice of the Ministers of the Colonial Legislature. The matter came before the Court of Appeal, in the well-known case in 1935, which involved the power of the 40 Dominion of Canada to pass an Act subsequently to the passing of the Statute of Westminster, revoking the right of Canadian subjects to appeal to His Majesty in Privy Council. In that case, which again I have before me, two propositions were laid down. The first is this: The Colonial Laws Validity Act made it perfectly clear that there was nothing in that Act which would abrogate the sovereign right of this House, and that there was no power in the Colonial Legislature to pass any laws Which conflicted with the laws of this House passed with special reference to that Colony.
§ If, therefore, it is the duty of the Governor to take into account the advice of the Ministers of the Colonial Legislature it is infinitely more his duty to take into account advice given by the Secretary of State for the Colonies; and it is the duty of the Secretary of State to give that advice. That point was raised and it was made quite clear in the case which I have before me. It is the case of the British Coal Corporation versus The King. It was decided by the Court of Appeal in this country in 1935. There, the Court of Appeal laid it down quite clearly that it was within the province of the Dominion Legislature to interfere with the Royal Prerogative. Indeed, they went so far as to say that the Royal Prerogative was in a sense a figment of the imagination. On this matter my colleagues and I submitted to the Council of Regency a Petition inviting the Council of Regency to exercise the Royal Prerogative. The Council of Regency made no application to the petitioners for particulars or information but I understand they took the advice of the Secretary of State for the Colonies. If the Secretary of State for the Colonies can give advice to the Regency Council, he can give it to the Colonial Governor. What I have asked in my Question is not seeking to impugn the conduct of the Governor in this matter—I believe him to be a man of the utmost probity and to have a definite view on this matter It is not to impugn the sincerity of the Secretary of State for the Colonies, but to assert the right of a Member of this House to ask by means of a Question on a matter of vital importance affecting the dignity and the decency of our Government what advice the Secretary of State for the Colonies has tendered to the Governor, why he has given that advice and when he gave that advice. I submit for your 41 further consideration, Mr. Speaker, that I am in Order in so doing.
§ Mr. SpeakerI must confess the hon. Member gave me a lot to think about, but really I am bound by this. The Minister informs me as to whether he is responsible or not, and I am informed that the Colonial Minister is not responsible in these matters. The second affair is the Royal Prerogative. It is not in Order for us to discuss the Royal Prerogative. That is a matter entirely for the Crown itself. If we have ever asked Questions about it here, they have been ruled out of Order. Whatever there has been in the past, two wrongs do not make a right. I am very sorry but I could give no other answer. The Minister is not responsible, the Prerogative is a matter for the Crown and is, therefore, not arguable in this House, and that must be my Ruling.
§ Mr. ChurchillMay I, while fully accepting your guidance on procedure, Mr. Speaker, ask a question of fact arising out of the statement of the hon. Member for Oldham (Mr. Hale)? Is there any foundation whatever for the statement that a number of men have been six times brought up for execution over a period of years? Is it possible that that statement is true; and if it is not true, ought it not to be contradicted at the earliest moment?
Mr. Creech JonesI think it is true that the condemned men have over the period of the last two years been taken to the township or the place where the execution was arranged to be held six times—[HON. MEMBERS: "Shame."]—some say five, some say six and some four. I have not the exact number of times, but it is true that that has actually happened.
§ Mr. ChurchillIs this not an affront to every decent tradition of British administration?
§ Mr. Sydney SilvermanFurther to the point of Order raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham (Mr. Hale), is it not now perfectly clear from the statement just made by the Colonial Secretary that this is not a matter in which the Royal Prerogative is concerned at all? This is a matter which involves the administration of British justice in a Crown Colony where the Governor is directly 42 responsible to the Colonial Secretary, and the Colonial Secretary is directly responsible to this House. In that case, is not my hon. Friend entitled to put a Question on the matter? Would he not be allowed to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House?
§ Mr. Hopkin MorrisHas not this—the right hon. Gentleman has indicated that the statement of fact is correct—tarnished the good name of this country? Is it not a matter for serious inquiry and one which, if necessary, should be raised on the Adjournment of the House? That these men should be brought six times to the place of execution is a disgrace to the name of Britain.
§ Mr. James CallaghanIs it not the case that these men had been tried judicially and found guilty by successive courts of law of a particularly horrible form of ritual murder; and is it not the case that many people are making points on this matter who really have not studied it?
§ Mr. Clement DaviesIs it not a fact that never in the history of this country has a postponed capital sentence been carried out, as it is realised that that would deeply shock public sentiment? Might I ask you, Mr. Speaker, if you would consider the question of the Adjournment of the House being moved here and now? I should prefer that the hon. Member for Oldham (Mr. Hale) moved it.
§ Mr. SpeakerI must say quite frankly that the Question was out of Order, and we cannot debate a Question which is out of Order. I am sorry but I cannot, therefore, accept such a Motion.
§ Mr. ChurchillWith great respect, Mr. Speaker, the House has been placed in the possession of certain facts, and these facts are in principle agreed by the responsible Secretary of State for the Colonies, which take the form of a number of men being brought over a period of Many months—
§ Mr. Skeffington-LodgeUnder your Government.
§ Mr. ChurchillI would never support such a thing. I do not believe in "cat and mousing" men up to the scaffold. Is this not an issue of fact and administration of the most urgent and grave character, and may I not ask the Secretary of State 43 for the Colonies whether he will now by his administrative authority, prevent any execution taking place until Parliament is properly seized of and informed on the matter?
§ Mr. S. SilvermanMay I respectfully ask for a Ruling on the point of Order which I submitted to you, Mr. Speaker, and which has not been answered, namely, whether the disclosure made by the Colonial Secretary a little while ago did not make it clear that this was not a question of the Royal Prerogative at all, but of the administration of justice in a Colony for whose administration he is responsible to this House? In that case is it not perfectly in Order, with due respect, to ask a Question about it?
§ Mr. SpeakerI cannot answer that. The Colonial Secretary alone can answer whether this is a matter of the Royal Prerogative, or of administration. I cannot decide one way or the other.
§ Mr. HaleI beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House on a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely, the failure of the Secretary of State for the Colonies to give directions to the Governor of the Gold Coast respiting four men now lying under sentence of death, who were condemned on 1st December, 1944, and who have on five previous occasions since that date been taken to the place of execution.
§ Mr. SpeakerThe hon. Member for Oldham (Mr. Hale) seeks to move the Adjournment of the House on a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely, the failure of the Secretary of State for the Colonies to give directions to the Governor of the Gold Coast respecting four men now lying under sentence of death, and who were condemned on the 1st December, 1944, and who have on five previous occasions since that date been taken to the place of execution. This Motion says "give directions to the Governor" in respect of five previous occasions. That must involve the Royal Prerogative, and therefore it must be out of Order.
§ Mr. ChurchillWith very great respect, Sir, apart from any question of the Royal Prerogative, does not the question of the execution of these men involve control by 44 this House over the actions of the responsible executive Minister? And have we no means or power to invite an explanation from the Minister? Must we go quietly away and learn that these men, after being four or five or six times brought to the threshold of death, have at last been executed; and is this not a matter of great urgency affecting the life and the honour and the decent administration of British government not only in this country?
§ Mr. SpeakerI am afraid that any respite of the sentence must mean discussing the Royal Prerogative, and I must, therefore, rule it out of Order.
§ Mr. DribergFurther to that point of Order, Mr. Speaker, I understood you to say originally that one of the reasons which had led you to rule this Private Notice Question out of Order was that the Minister himself had told you that he was not responsible. May I very respectfully ask whether, when a Minister inadvertently makes erroneous statements to you, it is not within your power to take cognisance of the arguments advanced by my hon. Friend to show that the Minister is responsible?
§ Mr. SpeakerI did not say the Minister informed me personally, but it is a fact that the Colonial Secretary does not exercise the Prerogative personally.
§ Mr. ChurchillHaving served for two years as Home Secretary I have a feeling about these particular matters. Is it definitely established that every statutory interference with an execution—every administrative interference with an execution—involves the Royal Prerogative? Are not respites frequently given from week to week when cases have to be considered; and was there not a case only last week, or the week before, of a respite being given for a considerable time by administrative authority? What has that to do with the Royal Prerogative which is involved in the case where a final or formal pardon is concerned? Might I ask for your Ruling, Sir, as between the two quite definite classes of action by which the execution of human beings is stayed?
§ Mr. SpeakerI do not quite follow the right hon. Gentleman. There is a certain administrative responsibility on the Home Secretary and everybody else, but once it comes to a sentence and the Prerogative 45 of mercy, I think the Home Secretary and this House have no power. Any hon. Member can go to the Home Secretary and say, "Please put the execution off," but that does not mean it can happen.
§ Mr. ChurchillNo, but has not the Minister the power to respite if he chooses without involving or invoking the Royal Prerogative?
§ Mr. SpeakerQuite frankly, I am not a knowledgeable person on that. I should like to, ask the Minister or the Home Secretary.
§ The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Ede)In order to help the House, and in response to your request, Mr. Speaker, I can only say what happens in regard to my own office, which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Woodford (Mr. Churchill) filled with so much distinction a few years ago. There are occasions—for instance, when a man appeals to the Court of Criminal Appeal—when it is necessary for further inquiry to be made into the circumstances of the case before a final decision is reached as to whether the Secretary of State shall make a recommendation to His Majesty with regard to the exercise of the Royal Prerogative. When the sentence is postponed, it may be postponed more than once, as in the case of William Joyce when there was a series of appeals. That is done every time there is an appeal to the Court of Criminal Appeal, but that, of course, does not involve the Royal Prerogative. As I understand the difficulty that is now before the House, this sentence has, in fact, been respited on several occasions, and the men have been taken to the place of execution. This has not happened, as far as I know, in England within recent times. I think the only occasion that this has been done in this country was in the notorious case of John Lee, where the drop had swollen owing to rain pouring on it, and then it was decided that the man should not again be taken to the place of execution. That is the only case that occurs to me on the spur of the moment.
§ Mr. RankinMight it be possible to have from the Colonial Secretary an indication of the exact number of times involved? Is it six or some lesser number? I am putting the point because a good deal of trouble seems to have been occasioned by the use of the number six, and I think 46 that should be ascertained to begin with. There is this other point, that a good deal of passion was simulated. Was James Connolly not shot while he was unable to stand?
§ Mr. ChurchillWith regard to the point now before you, Sir, namely of whether a respite, a postponement of execution, necessarily involves the Prerogative of the Crown, does not the statement volunteered by the Home Secretary show that there are cases where the Crown is not involved, and the Prerogative not invoked; and many cases where, as a matter of fact, in consequence of fresh evidence, or something like that, a respite is granted, administratively, not by the Crown at all but on Ministerial responsibility? If that were so, would your objection to a Motion for the Adjournment of the House being moved by the hon. Member for Oldham still stand—if it be true that there are cases, and that this is one of those cases where the Royal Prerogative is not invoked, but only the Ministerial responsibility?
§ Mr. EdeOn a point of Order, Mr. Speaker. The right hon. Gentleman would not desire to carry the statement I volunteered to help the House further than was intended. The responsibility does not alter the verdict of the court, and the responsibility of the Secretary of State or other person to show that the sentence, whatever it may be, is duly executed. It only postpones the period during which he makes up his mind whether he is going to advise the Crown in a certain direction.
§ Sir John AndersonI wonder if I can perhaps help on the point which I understand has been troubling you, Mr. Speaker, as to whether a question of interference with a capital sentence of necessity involves the exercise of the Royal Prerogative. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Woodford (Mr. Churchill) has said, there are exceptions. I would mention, for purposes of illustration, two which leap to my mind. One is where a sentence is interfered with on the ground that the person under sentence is alleged to be of unsound mind. In that case there is a duty on the Home Secretary which has nothing to do with the Royal Prerogative. Another case is that of a death sentence, passed by a court martial where there is a power to 47 interfere, quite apart from the Prerogative. These being facts, Mr. Speaker, is it not right to draw from them the conclusion that the case obviously is not a clear case, such as arises constantly in this country, of a person under sentence of death whose sentence can only be changed by invoking the Royal Prerogative. Does it not follow that there may be a necessity to inquire into the circumstances to see whether, in fact, the case which has just now arisen is a case involving the Royal Prerogative or, on the other hand, is a case where, under some process, under some provision of law possibly, interference might be a matter of administrative or Ministerial discretion?
§ Mr. Quintin HoggOn that point of Order, Mr. Speaker, may I submit that there have been at least two cases in this Parliament? The first was that of a Nazi youth of 14. I remember a Question appearing on the Order Paper asking whether or not he should be hanged. That was put to the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, and was not ruled out of Order at the Table. The second case was of Dov Gruner, which we were discussing in this House less than a month ago. There was a full-dress Debate upon it and the action of this same right hon. Gentleman, in giving a respite on that occasion, was called into question. No one suggested that that was out of Order. Thirdly, on this very question I have corresponded with the right hon. Gentleman. I was on a deputation which he was, unfortunately, prevented from receiving personally, but we were received by one of his permanent officials. I raised the case on this very ground. I may have been wrong, but I understood from the permanent official, and from the answer which the right hon. Gentleman very courteously gave me, that he was not suggesting that if he chose to exercise his power, he could not in fact exercise it. Are we to understand that someone has informed the Chair from him, that in fact he has not the power to grant this respite? If so, in my submission, it really reduces deputations to and correspondence with Ministers to nonsense. Having received deputations and correspondence is he now suggesting he has not the power to act in the manner desired? Is it submitted that he had no responsibility for what was done?
§ Mr. Turner-SamuelsIn my submission there is a grave constitutional issue here. The issue not merely involves a question of deciding whether the capital sentence is to be respited, but there is here in addition an attack on the administration of justice in a Colony with which the Colonial Office and this House are concerned. This House, in my submission, has the right to question what has been done in the course of such administration of the law in the trials in question. The position at the present moment is that because of some technical matter about the respiting of this sentence the Colonial Office is apparently going to escape being questioned on this very important matter. My submission to you, Sir, is that the proper procedure here is that it should be permissible to put a Question to the Colonial Secretary on this matter of the administration of justice, and if that Question can be and is put to the Colonial Secretary it should be his duty to advise the Crown in the meantime to postpone this sentence
Mr. Creech JonesI think the House will appreciate that any action I have taken in this matter has been taken on the advice of the highest possible authorities in legal matters. I am not in a position to exercise the Prerogative of Mercy. In fact, the Prerogative, I am advised, rests entirely with the Governor. In order that the fullest investigation should be made, I have from time to time delayed the execution of these men, and, on the representations of hon. Members, I have also brought to the notice of the Governor of the Gold Coast the very strong feeling which is entertained by Members of Parliament. I will however communicate immediately with the Governor of the Gold Coast, and tell him again of the very strong feeling which has been expressed in all quarters of the House in regard to this affair. I may add that, although I have no direct responsibility in regard to his action in the matter, I have personally, and by telegram, conveyed my own strong personal feelings. If the House will allow me, I will communicate again with the Governor, and suggest that there should be a respite, which would be a further respite after my communication of three weeks ago. I will suggest to him that. in the light of the feeling of the House, he should give his earnest consideration to the decision, for which he himself is responsible.
§ Mr. ChurchillWith great respect, having got so far, let us make sure that these men are not executed without Parliament having an opportunity to consider the matter. Will the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Colonies make it perfectly clear that he will not approve the execution of these men, pending further consideration by this House?
§ Several Hon. Members rose—
§ Mr. HaleI am very anxious to give the Secretary of State for the Colonies an opportunity of replying to the question put by the right hon. Member for Woodford (Mr. Churchill), because if the reply is in the affirmative, I think that would be acceptable to me, and to all sides of the House. But, if it is not in the affirmative, I must then ask your leave to make my Motion for the Adjournment of the House effective, by substituting "postponement" for "respite," which is what I meant. In view of the fact that the Secretary of State for the Colonies has now said he has postponed execution, I submit that the Motion is in Order.
§ Mr. SpeakerThe Motion would be in Order, but the Secretary of State has just said that he is communicating, and I cannot see that there is any urgency left.
§ Mr. HaleI must ask your leave. The right hon. Member for Woodford asked the Secretary of State a definite question—"Will the right hon. Gentleman undertake that this postponement will take place?" If so, I respectfully agree that there is no urgency, but, if it is just a matter of tendering pious advice, then the urgency remains.
Mr. Creech JonesI have already informed the House that I will immediately communicate with the Governor of the Gold Coast. I will ask him—[HON. MEMBERS: "Tell him."] There are limitations on my own power in this matter. I must behave in accordance with my responsibility, and my powers. I will ask the Governor of the Gold Coast if he will most seriously consider the postponement—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."] I cannot—[Interruption.]—I think the House may take it that if I make this suggestion to the Minister the respite will probably take place—[HON. MEMBERS: Oh."]— 50 I will make the strongest representations to the Governor on the matter.
§ Mr. ChurchillCan we rest in uncertainty upon a matter of life and death? The right hon. Gentleman says, "I will make the strongest representations," and so forth. Everyone knows that his powers over Governors are absolute. His power over their actions may not be absolute, but he can suspend a Governor from his functions. If there is no other way of gaining the time, he should certainly consider that. I have been concerned in these matters over a great many years. Is not this an exhibition of impotence on the part of the head of a great Department that he does not wish men to be executed, yet he does not know whether they will be or not, and says he has no means of sending word from Britain to one of his own officials, an appointed Governor? Is not that a shocking thing? May I ask you, Mr. Speaker, most respectfully, whether you will not give fresh consideration to the request for leave to move the Adjournment submitted by the hon. Member for Oldham (Mr. Hale), this being clearly shown to be not a matter of the Prerogative, but a matter involving the administrative authority of a servant of this House?
§ Mr. SpeakerI am not prepared to reconsider the matter. In fact, to ask for any further assurance from the Secretary of State, to ask him to take any dictatorial action, would, I think, be going outside the Constitution. I am quite prepared to stick to what I said, and it hon. Members do not like it, they can put down a Motion against me. Mr. Key.
§ Mr. CocksOn a point of Order. The whole House wants to prevent these six people from being executed tomorrow. Is there no way by which we can express our wishes by some form of Motion?
§ Mr. SpeakerIt has been made perfectly clear to the House that the Secretary of State intends to take some action.
§ Mr. ScollanOn a point of Order—
§ Mr. SpeakerThe hon. Member cannot get up and say, "On a point of Order." If I do not choose to accept it, I need not do so.
§ Mr. ScollanI desire to ask for information. Surely I can do that? I wish to 51 know whether your Ruling means that any sentences passed in the Colonies are not now subject to any interference from the Secretary of State for the Colonies?
§ Mr. SpeakerNo doubt the Secretary of State can explain that.
Mr. Ivor Owen ThomasThat reply raises in my mind the issue as to the operation of the Royal Prerogative—
§ Mr. SpeakerWe cannot go back on that. I said that the matter was closed.
§ Mr. ChurchillOn a point of Order. This is a matter of life and death. Will the Colonial Secretary not get off, and send his telegram now?
§ Mr. DonovanOn a point of Order. Do I understand, Mr. Speaker, that you have rejected the amended version of the Motion for the Adjournment suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham (Mr. Hale)?
§ Mr. SpeakerYes, that is so.
§ Mr. SpeakerWe must get on. Mr. Key.