HC Deb 25 October 1956 vol 558 cc827-8
46. Mr. Hyde

asked the Prime Minister whether he has considered the memorial petition which has been sent to him, signed by 2,500 people prominent in various walks of life in this country, urging Her Majesty's Government to introduce legislation abolishing the death penalty ; and what steps he proposes to take.

The Prime Minister

I have read the memorial sent to me by the National Campaign for the Abolition of Capital Punishment. I stated the Government's intentions in regard to the death penalty on Tuesday last.

Mr. Hyde

Would not my right hon. Friend agree that this document represents a more sane and balanced view of the question—

Hon. Members

Oh.

Mr. Speaker

It is out of order to ask for an expression of opinion.

Mr. Hyde

In the light of his assurance that Government policy would be based on the outcome of the debate in this House last February, would my right hon. Friend see that, in any relevant Measure under consideration, effect is given to the freely and repeatedly expressed will of the House of Commons?

The Prime Minister

Perhaps my hon. Friend would be good enough to await the Bill to which I have already referred.

Mr. S. Silverman

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, so far as I can make out, this is the first occasion since the days of Charles I that a group of distinguished citizens has found it necessary to call upon the Government to govern themselves in accordance with the majority will of the House of Commons.

Hon. Members

Answer.

The Prime Minister

I will answer with pleasure. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that there will be no attempt on the Charles I line—

Mr. Silverman

Do not lose your head over it.

The Prime Minister

—and no danger of decapitation.

Sir F. Medlicott

Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that the value and significance of this petition can be judged only if we can be told how many distinguished and prominent citizens refused to sign it?

The Prime Minister

I think both sides of the House understand that there are wide divergencies of opinion, that it would be quite possible for each of us to pronounce what the majority of the country thinks and that not one of us would have the right to lay down the law as to what the country did think.