§ 37. Sir R. Boothbyasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will now give the facts about the execution of Edith Thompson in 1923, and publish the full text of the instructions subsequently issued to prison governors regarding executions in general, indicating how far these instructions were affected by the facts in Mrs. Thompson's case.
§ 38. Mr. Fenner Brockwayasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will publish the full facts regarding the circumstances of the execution of Edith Thompson; and how far the circumstances in that case necessitated amendments to the rules concerning the conduct of executions.
§ Major Lloyd-GeorgeI would refer to the Answer which I gave on 27th March to Questions by the hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget), to which I have nothing to add.
§ Sir R. BoothbyWould my right hon. and gallant Friend not agree that that answer gave an account of the circumstances surrounding Mrs. Thompson's execution which differed very markedly from the impression which his Department has hitherto sought to give to both Houses of Parliament? I am wondering whether in the circumstances my right hon. and gallant Friend would not reconsider his decision not to publish the instructions to prison governors, as I feel that the House of Commons should now be informed of the full facts which surround this business.
§ Major Lloyd-GeorgeI cannot possibly accept responsibility as my hon. Friend suggests on behalf of my Department or of any holder of this office, either myself or my predecessors, for any of the circumstances which have led to the disputes in this case. Most of the statements—in fact all the statements—have been made by other people outside, and I am satisfied, having gone into this matter with very great care, that all the relevant facts are known. The first half of the instructions to governors was issued, I believe, in 1928 as a result of the trial and all the circumstances. The other part was given in the other place the other day, and there is nothing more I can add.
§ Mr. BrockwayIn view of the many statements which have been made in this matter and the acknowledgment in the Home Secretary's reply yesterday that the woman had to be carried to the scaffold and her body had to be supported on the scaffold, is it not desirable that there should be a full inquiry into this matter so that the public might be quite sure that the facts have been adequately revealed?
§ Major Lloyd-GeorgeI hope the hon. Member will take it from me that there are no facts which have not been revealed in regard to this case. A lot of suggestions have been made over the years—
§ Mr. Emrys HughesWhat did the hangman say in Glasgow?
§ Major Lloyd-GeorgeHe said nothing different to what I have said here. I have gone into this matter with very great care. I beg the hon. Member to read what is available to the public—that is, the evidence given before the Royal Commission—from which he would see that my statement is pretty accurate
§ Mr. YoungerWhatever may have been the merits of the Home Office decision in the past not to give full information when these stories started going round, does the right hon. and gallant Gentleman not agree that it was his Department which took the initiative in making a statement, both on this particular execution and on the instructions to governors, when his Joint Under-Secretary made a statement in the other place? Does the Home Secretary not consider it very unfortunate indeed that when the Home Office decided to take that initiative, it nevertheless gave information on 2346 both points which, no doubt quite unintentionally, turned out to be somewhat misleading and that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman has had to amplify both points since the statement was made? Is he aware that this has caused a great deal of distrust and that the Home Secretary now has something to live down in this matter?
§ Major Lloyd-GeorgeI am very sorry that I cannot possibly accept any part of the right hon. Gentleman's statement. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I will not accept any part of it—I repeat that. The fact is that the initiative did not come from the Home Office. It came from Mr. Koestler and his articles were published in the Observer.
§ Mr. Youngerrose—
§ Major Lloyd-GeorgeThe right hon. Gentleman must let me finish. I have been attacked constantly on this, and I am determined to see that my side of the case is put. It was Mr. Koestler's articles in the Observer—the precursor to his book—which started the whole of this question, particularly in regard to Mrs. Thompson's execution. It was the statements made in his articles that led to the statement made by my noble Friend in the House of Lords, and it was not the initiative of the Home Office at all. I am not responsible nor would I take any responsibility for what has happened in 1923 and since.
§ Mr. YoungerIs the right hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that there have been articles and statements comparable to those of Mr. Koestler for years past and that there was a new departure when his Department decided to make a formal statement in relation to them in another place, and that on both points, as I said before, the statement which was made turned out to be misleading in the sense that the impression was created that Mr. Koestler had misquoted the instructions, whereas in fact what he had done was to quote quite accurately that part of the instruction which the House Office itself had previously seen fit to make public? It was entirely the withholding of it from the public that caused Mr. Koestler to give that misleading information. Is the Home Secretary also aware that a quite wrong impression was created in the statement about the facts of Mrs. Thompson's execution?
§ Major Lloyd-GeorgeThis is typical of what has been going on the whole time. The statement originally made about Mrs. Thompson was made by a Member of the House in the 1948 debate. That could have been corrected then, but it was not—it was nothing to do with me anyway; but that was the statement then made. It has been repeated in Mr. Koestler's articles. It was not a statement made on behalf of the Home Office. A Question was asked, and in answer to that Question the statement was made by my noble Friend in the House of Lords. The fact remains, if we are to have controversy, as we will, on the question of capital punishment, that there is no need to descend to this kind of thing. Let us have this as a matter of conscience. [Interruption.] Certainly. Statements have been made about this execution which are entirely without foundation, and I am taking full responsibility for my office in saying that the answer which I gave yesterday is the correct answer with regard to the whole of this business.
§ Mr. SpeakerThis is becoming a debate and there are other Questions on the Order Paper.
§ Mr. Emrys HughesOn a point of order. In view of the attempt to hush up this business and the unsatisfactory nature of the answer, I give notice that I shall raise it on the Adjournment.
§ Mr. SpeakerIn giving notice that he intends to raise the matter on the Adjournment, the hon. Member should not use the opportunity to make any imputation. That is quite out of order.