MOSLEY’S RELEASE

Grey River Argus, 3 December 1943, Page 3

MOSLEY’S RELEASE

UPHELD BY COMMONS Majority of Five to One [Aust, ic N.Z. Press AssnJ • LOJNDON, Dec. 1The matter of the release from prison of Sir Oswald and Lady Mosley was debated to-day in the House of Commons, when an amendment was moved to the .. Address-in-Replyj by Rev. G. S. Woods (Labour), The New Zealand . Press Association Lobby correspondent states that before the House met, the Home Secretary, Rt. Hon. H. Morrison, at a private meeting, made a last minute appeal to the Labour Party members to support him in the debate. They agreed by a majority vote of about 20. The amendment was to the effect that the House regretted the release as “calculated to retard the war effort and lead to misunderanding at home and abroad.”

Mr. Woods, in moving the amendment, said it was in no sense a vote of censure and did not imply any; lack of confidence in the Government or Mr. Morrison. The Mosley’s release was a most profound psychological mistake. An overwhelming majority of his constituents were satisfied an error of judgment had been made, and the reaction had been spontaneous. The public, indignant and bewildered, was entirely cynical about the matter. It felt that the release was a confirmation of the old adge “One law for the rich and another for the poor.” If the United Nations were to pull together in the task of rebuilding the world on a democratic basis, it was vital there should be no misundertanding, and absolute minimum of suspicion. Mr. Woods added that the Mosely decision had caused reactions in the Dominions. There was general feeling that Britain wa's not really determined to destroy Fascism. Mr. Parker, seconding the amendment said the public were asking if a similar line would be taken regarding Hess and Hitler after the war. . Sir Lambert Ward said that Fas. cism in Britain was a dead letter. British Union activities were a thing of the past.

Sir P. Harris said that the illness from which Mosley is suffering was very common among prisoners. Dr Haden Guest said the decision to release Mosley was made on what appealed to be trivial grounds. Inflamed varicose veins were to many poor people an incident in their daily lives.

Mr. Morrison, replying to the do bate, begged the House not to think he had feelings of bitterness because there had been criticism. He understood the anxiety of the people, and in a certain sense had sympathy.with it. Much of the agitation arose from a fit of mob hyster’a. Mr. Morrison dealt with the medical history of the case. . He said that Mosley suffered from recurrent attacks of plebitis throughout his detention. _ Lord Dawson of Penn saw M'oslev in October and suggested a consultation between himself, the orison doctors and two outside doctors. The consultation was held and on November 9 all the doctors signed a report that if Mosley remained under conditions of prison life there would be substantial risk of the thrcmbo.nhlebitis extending. thus producing permanent damage to health and danger to life. After this report. Mr Morrison said, he was faced with several considerations. First was the security; of the State. So long as he was Home Secretary, the security of the State was going to come first, even “if I have to run the risk ot injustice to the individual.” The second consideration was the medical report, and if he satisfied himself, on security grounds, he felt sure the whole House would take the view it would be wrong on his part deliberately to let anv man die, not as the result of conviction by a Court, but under de tention by Eighteen B. The third consideration was if, in the event of release, such conditions could be attached to the suspension that the man would not become a danger to the security, of the State.

“I say to the House again,” said Mr. Morrison, “if you tvant Eighteen B. administered in a way that a person must stav under detention without trial, without habaes corpus, Magna. Carta, and what not, so that 1 must be indifferent to the health or even the death of a detainee, then I offer this challenge to m v critics. Let them draft, with such legal advice as they can get, either an amendment to the Defence Regulations or an amendment to the law which will give me the necessary directions an Secretary Dictate.” Regarding his action in making the statement before the Commons met, Mr. Morrison said: “There was nothing the House could do. All it could do was to fire the Home Secretary—or regulations. If lor any other Home Secretary in pursuance of the will of the House were to redetain Mosley he could go to the High Court and get an order washing out the re-detention.” After members raised objections, the Attorney-General, Sir Donald Somervell, pointed out that persons might be detamed whose detention appeared to the Home Secretary 1 to be^expedient in the interests of the public br the safety of the realm. That was his power and that was the limit of his power. If the Home Secretary satisfied himself the detention of anyone was not necessary for public safety, then it would be un lawful to detain him. ; - The amendment was defeated by a majority of 265, the voting being: For 62; against 327. (Rec 10.50.) LONDON, Dec. 2. Nearlv fifty of the Labour Members of the Commons defied the Party when they voted for. the amendment to the Address in Reply regretting Rt Hon H. Morrison’s release of Sir O. ’ Mosley. Mr. Attlee previously told the Party meeting that the amendment was a vote of censure. He made a very strong appeal for national unity. This revolt in the House was the most seriouq since the Beveridge Plan debate last February.