§ 21. Mr. Sydney Silvermanasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what are the considerations to which he has regard in deciding whether or not to advise His Majesty to exercise the Royal Prerogative of mercy in capital cases.
§ Mr. EdeIt is not desirable or possible to lay down hard and fast rules as to the exercise of the Prerogative of mercy in capital cases, or to give, within the compass of an answer to a Question, any adequate statement of the variety of considerations which may in practice be taken into account. Information as to certain general principles and as to the practice followed by successive Home Secretaries in some classes of cases was, however, given in the memorandum submitted by the Home Office to the Royal Commission on Capital Punishment, and I am sending a copy to my hon. Friend.
§ Mr. S. SilvermanCan my right hon. Friend say whether there has been any change in the general character of those considerations since this House took a memorable decision a year or so ago, and whether the considerations are such as to preclude in all circumstances the hanging of certifiable lunatics?
§ Mr. EdeThe hanging of a certifiable lunatic is governed by a separate Act, and even where that does not operate a medical inquiry is held.
§ Mr. WilkesIs the Minister aware that since July, 1945, in five cases where juries made a strong recommendation to mercy the death sentence was still carried out? Would not the Minister agree that as a jury, who listen most patiently to a case from the beginning to the end, probably know more about the case than anybody else it would be advisable to treat strong recommendations to mercy as an expression of the jury's view that the man should not hang?
§ Mr. Quintin HoggOn a point of Order. Have you not ruled, Mr. Speaker, that the discussion of particular uses of the Prerogative are out of order in this House?
§ Mr. EdeThe fact that a strong recommendation to mercy is made by a jury is one of the factors that are given the most serious consideration, but I must say, after nearly five years' experience in this matter, that I could not accept the doctrine that that should be a final and determining factor when the Home Secretary has to consider the decision he has to take.
§ Mr. Hector HughesIs the consideration of this matter in the terms of reference of the Royal Commission on Capital Punishment, which is now sitting? If not, 454 will the Home Secretary consider extending those terms of reference so that these matters can be considered by that Commission?
§ Mr. EdeThey are considering what modifications can be made, and it may very well be, judging by the evidence that has been placed in front of them, that the decision of the House Secretary in the matter may be one of the subjects on which they will make observations and. possibly, recommendations.
§ Mr. S. SilvermanWithout wishing to make my right hon. Friend's duties in this extremely difficult matter more difficult, may I ask him whether he is not aware that in a number of recent cases decisions that have been made have caused the widest possible public anxiety and distress?
§ Mr. EdeI have a duty to discharge. It is an exceedingly difficult and delicate duty, and I am only too well aware that on occasions when I reach certain decisions, for reasons which I cannot disclose, there may be, in consequence, great misgiving in the mind of the public—misgiving which would be removed if I could disclose my reasons. I am, however, precluded, and, I think, rightly precluded, from doing so.
§ Mr. R. A. ButlerIs the right hon. Gentleman aware that we on this side of the House have every confidence in his judgment in this matter? We think it would be better to await the conclusions of the Royal Commission and, meanwhile, leave the matter to the judgment of the right hon. Gentleman?