Second Reading Secured For Bill To Abolish Hanging

Press, Volume XCIII, Issue 27917, 14 March 1956, Page 13

Second Reading Secured For Bill To Abolish Hanging

(N.Z. Press Association—Copyright) (Rec. 11 p.m.) LONDON, Marwß The bill to abolish hanging cleared its first a crowded House of Commons last evening. By 286 votes to 262—a majority of 24—the secured a second reading for the bill, a private measure by Mr Sydney Silverman (Labour) with the support .of vatives and Liberals. The next stage is line-by-line consideration of committee. The House, as in the debate on February 16, rejeO advice of Major G. Lloyd-George, the Home Secretary, appealed for the retention of the death sentence.

He emphasised that life imprisonment, the alternative to the death sentence, would mean a term of 20 to • 25 years, or for some “the whole course of their natural lives.” ‘Last night’s majority was smaller than that of February 16, when the House approved the principle of abolition. Then there were two votes—' the first gave a majority of 31 against retaining the death penalty; the second ga a majority of 46 for abolition or suspension. zx swift move t) limit the abolitionist victory followed the vote, the “Daily Mail” said today. Immediately the result was declared Sir Hugh Lucas-Tooth. a former Home Office Parliamentary Under-Secretary, and two other Conservatives tabled an amendment proposing that hanging should be retained for three types of murderers:— (1) A man who kills i t armed rob bery or burglary. (2) A man who kills while evadin arrest (3) A convicted murderer serving life sentence who kills a warde The main purpose of this amend ment, according to the ‘‘Daily Express,” is to protect the police. Februr y 16 Motion Mr Silverman, who moved the second reading of the bill, recalled that on February 16 the House adopted the. following motion:— “That this House believes that the death penalty for murder no longer accords with the needs of the true interests of a civilised society, and calls upon Her Majesty’s Government to introduce forthwith legislation for its abolition or for its suspension for an experimental period.” Having unanimously adopted that motion in the substantive form, the House could not today reject the second reading of the bill without stultifying itself before the country and before history, he said. Mr Silverman said that when the House of Commons had recorded its judgment in that way no-one had a right to say that judgment was not a representative judgment representing public opinion. The House of Commons did not consist of 630 men and women of genius, nor of 630 fanatics or cranks, but of 630 responsible, experienced, conscientious citizens. There could be no better tribunal of instructed, considered public opinion than the opinion of the House, registered at the end of a thoughtful’debate, and the decision taken on a free vote. “Two Propositions” Mr Silverman said that the Home Secretary in the earlier debate had submitted two propositions which, in his view, had greatly influenced the vote. The Home Secretary had said he believed capital punishment to be justified only if it was likely to reduce the amount of murder; The other thing which greatly influenced opinion was the Home Secretary’s insistence that beyond any reasonable doubt it was possible to say that in recent years no innocent man had been hanged in Britain. “I do ask the Right Honourable gentleman to believe that he is probably the only man in this House who really believes that.” Mr Silverman said. (Cries of “No.”) “How any honest man applying his intelligence of the facts, can say there is no doubt of it, I really cannot understand.” he said. No judicial system could be infal-

lible; the risk of error there, Mr Silverman said. Mr Beresford Craddock live): The possibility is Mr Silverman: There are who agree with one of learned and profound of who said that until hurna was infallible we had inflict irrevocable doom. Another thing the bill did rro“Cro w.as to make any exceptions of any kind. He appreciated that to many the idea of limiting the death penalty to what could ‘be loosely called the worst murders was an attractive proposition. but there had been common ground on both sides, in the discussion of February 16, that no such distinction was reasonably practicable, said Mr Silverman. Nor did the bill attempt to define an alternative. No doubt administrative practice would be adapted to the new circumstances if the bill went on the Statute Book. It was necessary for the bill to deal with it. “Direct Conflict’’ Mr Silverman said he hoped the Government was not again going to advise the House to- reject the bill. That would be in direct conflict with what the Lord Privy Seal had told the House at the end of the debate on February 16, when he had said the Government' would give full weight at once to the decision of the House on a free vote?

He thought there was hardly a member of the House who did not in his heart believe that this reform was now inevitable —(cries of “No”)—and that if it did not come today it would come very soon; that it was in accordance with the prevailing opinion, and what was rapidly becoming almost a universal feeling; and that no member ought to fight a last ditch battle, obstinately clinging to the past. Mr Montgomery Hyde (Ulster Unionist) seconded the second reading.

He said that a charge frequently brought against those who favoured abolition of the death penalty was of sentiment. “Why waste sympathy on murderers?” they were asked.. “What about victims?”

It was better to make a convicted murderer work in prison to support the relatives and dependants of his victim, which was the practice in Sweden, rather than take his life, Mr Hyde said.