PROBLEM OF THE DEATH PENALTY IN BRITAIN

Wanganui Chronicle, 8 June 1948, Page 5

PROBLEM OF THE DEATH PENALTY IN BRITAIN

(N.Z.P. A.—Copyright.) Recd. 5.30 p.m. London, June 7. The Government certainly does not want a clash between the House of Lords and the House of Commons on a non-political issue such as the abolition of the death penalty, particularly in view of the Government’s own advice to the House against suspension, says “The Times" Parliamentary correspondent.

He added that abolitionists in the Commons and the Lords may at first be opposed to compromise, but in this situation compromise seems sensible and inevitable- However, it will not be easy to find a solution, particularly in view of the anticipation of events by the Home Secretary (Mr. Chuter Edes) in announcing his intention to advise the commutation of all death penalties since the vote in the House of Commons, to suspending the death penalty for five years.

The “Daily Telegraph’s” political correspondent said that the , Government leaders will try to persuade the

Parliamentary Labour Party on Wednesday of the wisdom of compromising with the Lords over the abolition of the death penalty. The leaders will find it difficult, because the Labour Party is overwhelmingly in favour of suspension of capital punishment. One argument that the leaders will use is that suspension of capital punishment is losing votes for the Labour Party in the constituencies. The "Daily Herald ’ said that although the Bill entailing abolition of the death penalty has not passed the House of Lords the House of Commons, as the people’s representative, had decided that hanging must stop; and the only wise end human course was to act on that decision, as Mr. Ede had done. The House of Lords has taken the initiative in political affairs. The Government and the House of Commons, in the next few days, will be much concerned with what the Peers aid in deleting the "no hangings” clause in the Criminal Justice Bill, and what the Peers may do with the Parliament Bill, which proposed to reduce the suspensory veto of the I.ords from two years to one. says “The Times’’ Parliamentary correspondent. From the Government’s point of view there could not have been a more awkward coincidence. Opposition Peers, in resisting the Parliament Bill, argue that their right to hold up controversial legislation until public opinion can be formulated should not be impaired. They can notv claim that their action on the "no hanging" clause is a classic example of a justifiable use of their powers.

This is the tangle the Government will strive to unravel this week. The solution will not be easy, but an ef fort will be made to evolve a compromise.