DOUBLE-DEALING
THERE amendment, which was carried by 292-to 246, called upon 'Her Majesty's Government to introduce forthwith egislation for its abolition or for its suspension for an expert- sil!e.rttal period.' Winding up for the Government, Mr. Butler ogld 'When we have a free vote we naturally expect to base actions, if perhaps after necessary further deliberation, on the decision of the House.. The decision for Hon. Members 's, therefore, very serious.' Shortly after the vote Sir Anthony Eden said : `The Rt. Hon. gentleman can be assured that the Government will give full weight at once to- a decision taken by this House on a free vote,' and added that of course the Government would have to consider for a day or two the t,tatement that it would make. It is quite plain therefore that Government was committed to bringing in legislation to abolish the death penalty. What did it do? It waited a week and then announced that it would not bring in legislation but s °uld give time for a Private Member's Bill, that of Mr. dheY Silverman. So much for Mr. Butler's natural expec- t"ney, so much for Sir Anthony Eden's full weight. Until the announcement last week it could at least be said of Sir Anthony Eden's Government that she was poor but she was honest.
What makes this all the sadder is that the Government was not in any great difficulty. Its surrender of its virtue was largely gratuitous. Back-benchers not seldom have to support measures of which they disapprove. Why should not Ministers have to do the same for once? Even if it were true, which it manifestly is not, that Ministers have more tender con- sciences than back-benchers, it is far from clear why it should be only back-benchers who ever have to make shipwreck of them. Not that Ministers would even have had to do that. All that they would have had to do was abstain—just as the abolitionist members of the Government had to abstain a fortnight ago. However strongly hanging Ministers felt that the services of the hangman should be retained, that would not have been a very great sacrifice. the Home Secretary would not have had to change his mind again on the question of abolition. The spectacle of hisaising to the dispatch box and saying, The House will remember that on behalf of the Gov- ernment I advised the House against abolition, but the Gov- ernment naturally accepts the view which the House expressed in a free vote,' would surely not have been displeasing to his Liberal past, however distasteful to his Home Office present.
If the Government had taken the course which common honesty demanded it would have at least given some dignity to its handling of this question—something which has so far eluded it. After refusing to adopt the recommendations of the Royal Commission, it changed its mind in an effort to avoid defeat and tabled a motion advocating amendment of the law of murder. It thought that the recommendations of a com- mittee of Conservative lawyers gave it a means of defeating the abolitionists. Too late, it discovered that it could not adopt the most important of these recommendations. It thus ended up by merely proposing a few footling amendments which would in practice have made hardly any difference to the law.
It is difficult to see that the Government's action last week has greatly helped it, though it is no doubt hoping that Mr. Silverman's Bill will be killed. The Government has promised that the Committee stage will be taken on the floor of the House. The retentionists will probably put down a series of amendments and indulge in protracted debate. The Govern- ment has little time to spare and the debates on capital punishment may jeopardise its business; and so the Govern- ment may find itself in the ludicrous position of having to help the abolitionists in order to clear the Bill out of the way. If the Bill gets through the Commons unscathed, the problem of opposition in the House of Lords will not have been lessened, let alone solved, by the dodge of sending up to it a Private Member's instead of a Government Bill. It looks as though the Government has been incompetent even in its double-dealing.
Previous page
