Submission - Memorandum on the Royal Prerogative of Mercy [1903-09-26]

Mr. Secretary Akers-Douglas with his humble duty begs leave to enclose a Memorandum which he has prepared at Your Majesty’s desire on the Royal Prerogative of Mercy—or rather on the constitutional practice as to the exercise of the prerogative.

Mr. Douglas thinks it is most important that the practice of the last 80 years at any rate, should not be departed from. He would particularly emphasize the three following points.

1. There are from 5000 to 6000 petitions every year against convictions and sentences. If Your Majesty is to deal personally with any of them, you ought to deal personally with all. It would be invidious to pick and choose.
2. If Your Majesty is to deal with death sentences your attention must be available at all times from sentence to final decision. The practice of the S[ecretary] of S[tate] is to deal not only on the evidence at the trial: but on evidence which accumulates until the last moment.
3. The power of reprieve involves the power, and duty to refuse to reprieve. This latter power is sometimes bitterly attacked, and public opinion is lashed up by an unscrupulous partisan press. For instance the Radical Press took up Lipski’s case—in Mr. Secretary Matthews’s time—and if my memory serves me Mr. Stead in one of his papers said, ‘So an innocent man is to be sent to the gallows to gratify the wounded vanity of the Home Secretary.’ Such cases may always arise from time to time—and it must be borne in mind that ‘yellow journalism’ is on the increase. It would be intolerable that Your Majesty’s name should be dragged into the mire to serve the temporary purposes of some wretched newspaper.

Again suppose a man of good position is reprieved strictly according to the traditional exercise of the prerogative (say great temptation and sudden passion) a section of the Press would not hesitate to attribute it to personal influence and raise the cry of ‘one law for the rich and another for the poor’. It is in Mr. Douglas’s opinion the Home Secretary’s duty to bear the brunt of such attacks, and to defend himself if necessary in Parliament.