(NO. 18.) COMMITTEE.

HL Deb 15 March 1869 vol 194 cc1309-48

House in Committee (according to Order).

Clauses 1 and 2 agreed to.

Preliminary.

Clause 3 (Definition of "Court").

THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY moved to add at end of Clause— 'Chief Officer of Police' shall mean within the district of the metropolitan police force the commissioner of police, or an assistant commissioner, or a district superintendent; in the city of London, the commissioner of police; and elsewhere shall include any of the following persons—chief constable, head constable, or other chief officer of police or of a division of police, by whatever name such chief officer may be called. The intention of this, in conjunction with Clause 4, was to require the written authority of the chief officer for the arrest by any constable of a person suspected of dishonest practices. This had been done hitherto, as shown by the memorandum of the Chief Commissioner in the metropolis which had lately been presented, but the object was to convert the custom into a statutory provision.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Part I. Criminals at large on License.

Clause 4 (Power to apprehend holders of license on suspicion).

THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY moved to insert in line 17 after ("may") the words "if authorized so to do in writing by a chief officer of police,"

Amendment agreed to.

EARL GREY moved an Amendment; for the first paragraph of the clause as it stands in the Bill substitute the following:— Any convict who is the holder of a licence granted under Penal Servitude Acts, 1853, 1857, and 1864, may be required by a written order, signed by a commissioner or inspector or chief constable of police, to appear before a justice of the peace or other competent magistrate, at a time and place to be named in such order, for the purpose of showing that he is not getting his livelihood by dishonest means. Such order may be served on the convict to whom it is addressed by any constable or police officer, who may without warrant take into custody and bring before a justice of the peace or other competent magistrate any convict who shall have failed to obey such order so served upon him. He said, that under any arrangement the power of the police would be excessive; but at all events he did not think the ticket-holder should be arrested without notice. It might indeed be urged that if served with a notice he would immediately abscond; but the Bill, it was claimed, would insure an effective supervision over these men in all parts of the kingdom—and indeed the whole system of licensing was absurd, unless the arrangements for supervision were such that sooner or later a man who ran away could be traced and visited with increased punishment. It would be very hard to the licensee to arrest him without notice, perhaps in the presence of his fellow-workmen, and under particularly painful circumstances, and it would be quite sufficient in the first instance to serve an order upon him to attend before a magistrate and give an account of himself. If he did not do so he could then be arrested in default.

THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY

said, he hoped the Committee would not agree to the Amendment. It was obvious that if they gave any such notice to any suspected license-holder, he would take advantage of it to abscond, and thus the whole object of the measure would be defeated. It should be recollected that the men to whom this clause applied had been guilty of serious offences. He believed that the supervision of criminals by the police would be materially improved by the Bill, but it was idle to expect that it could, be made so perfect that the police could at any moment lay their hands on a suspected character to whatever portion of the country he might remove. The Government were not desirous of making the law unduly severe, but he did not know why men who had been convicted of serious crimes should be dealt with with extreme tenderness. While permitting men, instead of passing the whole period of their sentence in a convict prison or at public works, to go out and earn an honest living, care must be taken that society was not injured by their release, and a vigilant watch must be kept over them. The Bill would permit the Secretary of State to dispense with the obligation of reporting themselves every month to the police, and they would not be arrested without the authority of a chief officer, who, from the responsibility of his position and his liability to public censure, if he gave such authority on insufficient grounds, would not be likely to interfere with any license-holder who was conducting himself properly.

THE EARL OF SHAFTESBURY

said, their object should be to avoid giving publicity to a man's antecedents if he was earning an honest livelihood. The Amendment of the noble Earl would entirely defeat that object; and he feared that even the clause as it now stood would be too apt to produce the same effect. A person served with a notice in the presence of his fellow-workmen or arrested on suspicion would infallibly be dismissed.

THE EARL OF CARNARVON

objected to the Amendment as one which, by giving the opportunity of escape, would nullify the operation of the Bill. There might be a hardship, as urged by the noble Earl (the Earl of Shaftesbury), in serving a notice on a man perhaps in the presence of his fellow workmen; but it should be remembered that they had a duty to perform towards the employer as well as to the man he employed. It would be very unjust to the employer to conceal from him the fact that he was trusting a man who had already been convicted on a criminal charge; and he believed that whenever that concealment had been practised it had been found to operate disadvantageously for all the parties interested. The great majority of employers were willing to give a fair consideration to the case of a criminal with whose previous history they had been made acquainted, and were disposed, on the other hand, to resent any attempt to keep them in a state of ignorance upon the subject.

THE EARL OF SHAFTESBURY

wished to know the exact position in which the police were to stand with regard to employers. If a policeman thought it his duty to inform an employer that he had a ticket-holder in his service, the usual result would be the man's dismissal; and he had known several instances of the kind. A policeman, on the other hand, knowing that a man who was one of the greatest vagabonds was employed in a confidential situation in a large workshop, might not think it his duty to tell the employer the man's character. Some line ought to be marked out for the police to act on.

THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY

said, it would be seen from the memorandum to which he had already referred that it was not the custom of the police to give notice to employers of the antecedents of licensees in their employ.

LORD HYLTON

said, that if it was made difficult for these men to obtain employment through the publicity given to their previous character, and through the constant supervision of the police, the entire object of tickets-of-leave—namely, their absorption into the ranks of the industrial classes—would be defeated. He thought the clause might be struck out as unnecessary, for there was power for punishing men severely if they relapsed into crime.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

said, he had been rather alarmed at hearing from the noble Earl (the Earl of Kimberley) that the police did not deem it their duty to inform employers of the true character of a man 'whom they might receive into their service. This might be merciful towards the ticket-of-leave man, but was it just towards his employer? The interests of the employer and those of the ticket-holder being in direct opposition, which of the two were the Government to consult? To allow the employer to suffer from the bad character of a licensee on the chance that the latter had reformed seemed to him a mistaken policy. The Government were every year secretly throwing on society a number of people who, from previous habits, were likely to plunder those under whom they served. The least therefore the Government could do to repair the injury to society was to insure that the police exercised that vigilant supervision which the employers, if properly warned, would exercise for themselves, and that at the first symptom of an inclination to resort to their old criminal habits, the employers should be saved from the danger to which the Government had exposed them. The tendency of the Amendment was one which had been too common of late years—namely, that when the interests of society and the interests of the criminals were in conflict it was the duty of the Government to care for the criminals more than for society. These men were making war upon society, and society ought surely to neglect no means of making war upon them.

LORD HOUGHTON

said, he thought the noble Marquess entirely misapprehended the whole object of the ticket-of-leave system. The object of that system was to give a man a chance of returning to honest courses; but it was impossible that object could be obtained if publicity were given to the facts of his previous career. At Wakefield there was an organization by which every prisoner on his discharge, whether on a ticket-of-leave or otherwise, could find a home for six or twelve months until he could find employment for himself, or until an employer came to look for him. This had succeeded admirably, for 80 per cent of the persons who had been inmates of the institution had merged into the honest and industrious classes; and it would be well if such an institution were attached to every prison. To attempt to treat a man as a prisoner and yet as an honest member of society would never succeed; nor did he think we should try to introduce the status which unfortunately existed on so large a scale in some other countries, where men were walking about apparently free, and yet were really under the supervision of the law. He understood that a number of eminent Judges and magistrates were of opinion that the principle of this clause—the arrest of men on mere suspicion, without any corpus delicti—would be liable to great abuse and would never work satisfactorily. One difficulty would consist in determining what was an honest occupation. Were small retailers necessarily honest, or was the holding of shares in a limited liability company necessarily an honest occupation? The intention, of course, was that a man should have some means of living, so as not to be tempted by want to commit crime; but the inquiry and exposure now proposed would immediately deprive him of whatever honest occupation he might have.

THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY

suggested that it would be more convenient that they should confine themselves to a consideration of the Amendment of his noble Friend, and that they should not enter into a general discussion of the clause.

LORD CAIRNS

said, he preferred the proposal made by the Government to the Amendment of the noble Earl in this case. By the Government proposal the responsibility would be thrown upon the police of obtaining reasonable proof that the man was not making out a living by honest means, and so securing a reasonable certainty of the power not being improperly exercised; whereas the Amendment would enable the police to summon the man before a magistrate, and would impose upon him the task of showing that he was following some honest employment, and thus defeating the object in view—that men willing to be honest and industrious should not be disturbed without reasonable cause. If this provision were adopted, hundreds of ticket-of-leave men might be summoned before a magistrate on the mere responsibility of a constable.

EARL GREY

explained that the Amendment, as well as the original clause, would, require a constable to be satisfied that a man was living dishonestly before taking any action; the only difference between them being that under the former he would be served with a notice to appear, while under the latter he would be arrested at once. He did not desire, however, to press the proposal.

Amendment withdrawn.

THE EARL OF CARNARVON moved, in line 25, to leave out ("getting") and insert ("endeavouring to get").

THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY

, while admitting the desirability of protecting licensees from unfair molestation, urged that a man, unless starving—in which case he would be sent to the workhouse—must be living either honestly or dishonestly. There was no intermediate stage, and he did not see how a magistrate could determine whether a man was "endeavouring to get" an honest livelihood.

LORD CAIRNS

suggested that the object of the Amendment would be better attained by using, in the latter part of the clause, negative instead of affirmative words—namely, to alter the sentence from "If such holder of license shall fail to make it appear to the satisfaction of the justice or magistrate before whom he is brought that he is getting a livelihood by honest means," to "that he is not getting a livelihood by dishonest means."

THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY

said, he would accept this Amendment.

Clause amended accordingly.

On Question, "That the clause as amended stand part of the Bill,"

THE EARL OF SHAFTESBURY

admitted that the alteration was an improvement; but he thought some notion ought to be given of what was meant by "dishonest means." They must not expect in the class with which they were dealing a very high class of morality. Many of those people might earn their livelihood by means that were not creditable, but which were not in a legal sense dishonest. Men, for instance, got a living by hawking small goods without a license, and many men, he was sorry to say, were supported entirely by women, and in these cases persons would be most unwilling to reveal how they gained a livelihood. He wished while this clause was being discussed to defend himself against the noble Marquess's charge of taking up the cause of the criminals against the interests of society.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

said, he had made no such charge against the noble Earl.

THE EARL OF SHAFTESBURY

said, he was happy to accept the noble Marquess's disclaimer, but wished nevertheless to explain the grounds on which he objected to this clause. He believed that in so objecting he was maintaining the interests of society. We were now beset by thousands and tens of thousands of a class of desperate characters who were preying upon society because at this moment they had no other means of living. Let there, then, be just so much control and supervision over them as should not shut them out altogether from any possibility of gaining an honest livelihood. He ventured to repeat what he had often stated before that, of these thousands who were annoying and injuring society in every possible way, fully two-thirds would, if they had the means, quit that career and enter on a career of honesty. That eminent officer, Colonel Henderson, and his able superintendents would confirm this assertion. The object, therefore, should be not to exonerate them from punishment or from due supervision, but to leave them just as much liberty as would enable them to return to honest courses. The ticket-of-leave men were not the most difficult class to deal with—the most difficult class consisted of those who were constantly being imprisoned on short sentences, and who were the most degraded and most wretched part of the criminal population. On leaving the prison they were turned out in the old and ragged clothes with which they entered; when they asked for work, they were told first to get themselves decently dressed; now if additional restrictions were imposed upon them how could they obtain situations? The large proportion of them would accept any system by which they might get honest employment; but they laboured under peculiar disadvantages. They were not skilled labourers—very few artizans being among them—but were mostly men who could only do inferior kinds of work. The lives they led, their alternations of revelry and starvation—sometimes when they had made a haul of £200 or £300 living in a state of magnificence, and two or three days afterwards being as wretched as ever—made their physical condition very low, and did not recommend them to the notice of those who required vigorous labour. Let there be such supervision as was absolutely necessary, but let it not go an inch beyond that, for the existing evil would thus be perpetuated; and to shut them out from the possibility of getting anything in an honest way would be to expose society to the daily and hourly ravages of men who, the more restrictions they were subjected to, would become the more desperate and the more likely to perpetrate serious crimes.

THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY

said, the argument the noble Earl had just addressed to the House, that the more these ruffians were restricted the more desperate they would become, was an argument against the whole system of licenses, for in that case they clearly ought not to be let loose on society under any circumstances. That system, however, had been deliberately adopted by the Legislature, and it was desirable that the House should understand how little alteration in it was proposed by this Bill. The existing conditions of licenses, as laid down by the Act of 1864, were very stringent, for they required every holder of a license to produce it when called upon to do so by a magistrate or a police officer; to abstain from any violation of the law; not to habitually associate with notoriously bad characters, such as reputed thieves and prostitutes; and not to lead an idle and dissolute life, without visible means of obtaining an honest livelihood. The number of convicts so released would now be largely augmented, owing to the entire cessation of transportation, and strict supervision was therefore all the more necessary. Parliament, in his opinion, acted wisely in adopting the present system, and he should be sorry to see it abandoned, for the consequence would be a recurrence of the panic which had been prevalent at the time the Act of 1864 was passed, and the re-action would be such that much more severe enactments than those now proposed would be adopted. The clause in its present shape would lessen in some respects the rigour of the existing law, for, taken in connection with a later clause, the obligation of licensees to report themselves monthly would be mitigated, and the written authority of the chief officer for any arrest, which was now customary, would be made statutory. A convict would be liable to be called upon to show that he was not earning a livelihood by dishonest means, and this, it had been urged, would materially interfere with his chance of obtaining honest employment. What, however, was the case? From a statement furnished him by the Discharged Prisoners' Aid Society in London, the most considerable of its kind, he gathered that the total number of discharged prisoners assisted by the association since May, 1857, was 5,798, or 25 per cent of the whole number discharged, But the average number had recently decreased, because fewer prisoners had of late been released on license. The number of those who had applied to the society during the first six months of last year (1868) was 145, of whom twenty-six had emigrated, forty-four had found good and constant employment in the metropolis, and fifteen had gone to sea, twenty-five had been sent to places beyond the metropolitan police district and placed under the supervision of the local police, and thirty-five had been classed as unsatisfactory and bad; but these included some who were known to be in honest employment, but were so classed because they had failed to report themselves to the police, as required by the Act. That result was far from discouraging; it showed that licensed convicts could be disposed of in a satisfactory manner. With respect to the alleged annoyance to which these convicts were subjected, he had been assured that of the whole number of 475 convicts whose licenses had been revoked during the last three years, only five had made complaints of having been unduly interfered with by the police. Allowing for the reluctance of men in such a position stating their case fully to those in authority, the fact showed the interference of the police was not of the vexatious kind generally supposed. The clause, on the whole, would rather mitigate the condition of ticket-of-leave men than impose fresh hardships upon them. What he considered as an indispensable security was that the men should be under some control when released, with the view of obtaining honest employment.

THE EARL OF SHAFTESBURY

expressed himself satisfied with the clause as it stood amended. But he must deny the suggestion that he was opposed to the system of licensing—on the contrary, he held that the condition of ticket-of-leave men was preferable to that of those liberated at the end of a short term, as was testified by criminals often pleading for a long sentence in preference to a short one. During a long sentence they learned a trade, and when liberated they received a gratuity, which enabled them to purchase clothes or subsist until they found employment. He generally approved the effect of long sentences.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 5 (Penalty for breach of conditions of license) agreed to.

Clause 6 (Register of holders of licenses).

THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY

said, he had an Amendment to propose to meet the suggestion of his noble Friend opposite (the Earl of Carnarvon). His noble Friend had pointed out in the debate on the second reading of the Bill that it would be inconvenient if the registry of those men was kept by the Chief Commissioner of the metropolitan police. He (the Earl of Kimberley) thought it might be better if the Secretary of State had power to place the matter under the care of some other person, and he therefore proposed to insert words giving him power to do that, should he desire to do so.

Amendment moved, in line 12, after ("metropolis") to insert ("or of such other person as one of Her Majesty's Principal Secretaries of State may appoint").

THE EARL OF CARNARVON

approved the Amendment, which removed his objection to the clause. He would also repeat a suggestion made on a former occasion, that the authorities at borough and county gaols should secure photographs of all persons committed to their charge, for the purpose of future identification.

THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY

said, he was sensible of the great use of such photographs, although they could not be regarded as conclusive evidence. The Home Secretary would, no doubt, do all in his power to carry out the suggestion.

THE EARL OF LICHFIELD

urged that it was of the utmost importance not only that they should have the registrar in a central office in London, but that the agents who were employed to keep a supervision over the ticket-of-leave men should be independent, to a certain extent, of the police force proper. He did not much care whether or not they were under the care of the Chief Commissioner of the metropolitan police, but he thought that they ought themselves to be particular officers charged with a particular duty. He was afraid that that Bill was based upon a state of things existing in London; but not to the same extent in the country; for it was evident that it was chiefly by means of Discharged Prisoners' Aid Societies that these convicts would be able to obtain employment.

Amendmentagreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 7 (Returns for purposes of registrar),

Amended by inserting the words ("the gaolers of county and borough prisons") shall make returns, &c, and agreed to.

Clause 8 (Expenses of registrar) and Clause 9 (Part of Act to be construed with Penal Servitude Acts) agreed to.

Part II.—Habitual Criminals.

Clause 10 (Person twice guilty of felony, and not punished with penal servitude, to be subject to the supervision of the police).

LORD CHELMSFORD

called attention to the peculiar phraseology of the clause, which provided that men twice convicted of felony, if not punished by death, should be subjected to the supervision of the police. What was the necessity for the exception "if not punished with death?"

THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY

thought the phrase necessary, having regard to the consequences that were to follow conviction in this and the next clause. It had been pointed out to him that there were certain misdemeanours which it would be desirable to include in the operation of this clause. He had endeavoured to meet the suggestions which had been made; but there were others which went further than he thought it prudent to extend the clause, because it was not desirable to be excessively severe. Accordingly, he had given notice of an Amendment to omit the word "felony" and insert "offence specified in the first schedule hereto," and he proposed to add to the Bill as its first schedule "any felony, or the offence of uttering false or counterfeit coin, or the offence of obtaining goods or money by false pretences." If he might anticipate the noble Earl (Earl Beauchamp) he was quite ready to add the words "or misdemeanour under the 58th section of the 24 & 25 Vict. cap. 96."—That misdemeanours related to persons found with implements of housebreaking upon them, or with their faces blackened with the intent to commit felony, who were subjected to penal servitude for five years. The offences were of such a nature that they ought to be included in the Bill; and he was obliged to the noble Earl for having pointed out the omission. He hoped the House would agree that the misdemeanour of uttering false coin ought to be included, and he thought that obtaining money by false pretences ought also to be included, because many of these criminals committed offences of this kind.

Amendment, line 36, to leave out ("felony") and insert ("offence specified in the first schedule hereto.")—(The Lord Privy Seal),agreed to.

LORD HOUGHTON moved an Amendment, in line 3, that a person should have been "twice" instead of "once" previously convicted before he was subject to supervision. It was against the spirit of our law to treat a man as an habitual offender until he had been twice previously convicted. The range of felony for which convictions might be recorded was very large, and offences varied very much in character. It behoved their Lordships to be aware how they enlarged this criminal class more than they were obliged to do, and it already included a very large body of men.

THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY

said, the Amendment went to the principle of the Bill. It was essential to bear in mind what the law was. It allowed an alternative sentence to be passed upon men convicted of certain crimes; they might be sentenced either to imprisonment or to penal servitude. Since the passing of the Act of 1864, which made five years the minimum of a sentence of penal servitude, the Judges had exercised their discretion in a large number of cases; the number of sentences to long terms of imprisonment had increased, and the number of sentences to penal servitude had been proportionately diminished. The object of this Act was to place to a certain extent, men who had suffered sentences of imprisonment in the same position as men who had been subjected to penal servitude. But when it was said these persons were to be subject to the supervision of the police it must not be supposed they were to be subjected to the conditions which were imposed by the Act of 1864. The only conditions to which persons who were sentenced to this supervision of the police would be subjected were the conditions named in this Bill—and that made a material difference. Many had erroneously supposed that persons who would soon number 25,000 on the average would be subjected to that supervision of the police to which men under license after penal servitude were subject. On the contrary, the men who received a sentence contemplated by the clause would be subject only to the three conditions named in the clause defining the special character of the supervision. Under these circumstances to accept this Amendment and substitute "twice" for "once" would be to strike at the very intentions of the clause, which was that persons once convicted of felony should be placed under special disability, in the same manner, though not to the same extent, as persons sentenced to penal servitude. He hoped the House would agree that it was not going too far, in the case of men guilty of such crimes, to place them under the special disabilities prescribed by the clause. Those who attended to the nature of the sentences frequently passed at Assizes and quarter sessions must know that there were convicts who had only received sentences of imprisonment who were as dangerous and who belonged as much to the class of "habitual criminals" as those who had been sentenced to penal servitude for a long term. He agreed in the opinion that in many cases it would be wiser, instead of passing a sentence of imprisonment, to award the punishment of penal servitude, because a man upon whom that punishment was inflicted was subjected to wholesome discipline, and was withdrawn for a longer time from the public eye. He trusted that their Lordships would agree to the clause as it stood, and not accept the Amendment proposed by his noble Friend.

THE EARL OF SHAFTESBURY

thought that the clause, as it stood, scarcely gave a man once convicted a fair chance of earning an honest livelihood. If a man once committed a crime, no matter how sincere might be his repentance, or how strong his desire to labour honestly for his living, he would be under this law for the period provided in the clause. He desired to know whether there was any power lodged in the Crown, supposing the man conducted himself well, to remit any of this portion of his sentence? He thought it would be very desirable to lengthen the period of the first sentence—the evil of short sentences was incalculable.

EARL GREY

said, he must remind the noble Earl that the supervision was imposed, not when a man was convicted for the first time, but when it was shown that he had been once convicted before.

LORD HOUGHTON

wished to draw the attention of his noble Friend (the Earl of Kimberley) to the fact that no discretion was vested in the Judges. He thought it most unfortunate that Bills of this character were not submitted to the ministers of justice in this country. He ventured to say that this Bill had not been advised upon by any of the Judges; indeed, he doubted whether they were aware that such a measure had been proposed. He certainly believed that this was the only country in the world where such a state of things would be tolerated.

THE EARL OF MORLEY

said, he trusted this clause would be retained as it stood. Out of 131,000 persons convicted last year upwards of 30 per cent had been convicted before, and of the 46,000 who were re-convicted, 41,000 had been convicted only once previously. It was perfectly true that the principle they were proposing was a new one, but the condition of things was new, and when they had new conditions to meet new principles must be applied. It had been said that by this supervision for seven years the convict would be placed under a sort of ban; but that ban was sufficiently elastic, because it would not prevent him from earning an honest livelihood, while through its means the police would have the power of preventing him from recurring to his old courses.

Amendment negatived.

LORD CAIRNS

said, he thought that without making it incumbent on the Judge to decide whether this supervision should form a portion of the punishment some discretion might fairly be left in his hands. He therefore proposed the addition of words to the clause which would have the effect of making the supervision follow the conviction in the case provided against by the clause, "unless the Court should declare to the contrary."

THE DUKE OF CLEVELAND

thought that the noble Earl should assent to the Amendment proposed by the noble and learned Lord. It very frequently happened that the second offence was of a trivial character, and he therefore thought it was advisable that some discretion should be left in the hands of the Judge.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

said, he was afraid that he could not accede on behalf of Her Majesty's Government to the suggestion of his noble and learned Friend. His noble and learned Friend proposed that it should be left to the Judge to declare on the trial whether or not the supervision proposed by this clause should take effect. He (the Lord Chancellor) held that this could not be done without injury to the scope and purport of the Bill. The Bill was divided into three Parts. The first—with which their Lordships had already dealt—applied to the ticket-of-leave men, who would be treated with but very little more severity, but over whom there would be more vigilant supervision. The second Part—that which the Committee were now on—applied to persons who, having been once convicted, were brought up again to be tried. The third Part applied to persons who had been twice convicted, and were brought up again, and who, if again convicted, were to be dealt with in a different manner. The whole scheme and purport of the Bill was to have a deterrent effect—to protect society from the depredations of the criminal, and to protect the criminal from his own evil habits and and associates. Now with regard to this clause, it was only when a man, having been once convicted, fell again into evil habits, was again brought to trial and again convicted, that it would be brought into operation. A noble Lord (Lord Houghton) had spoken of the commission of an offence which involved no moral guilt. He had some difficulty in conceiving an offence without moral guilt; but they were now asked to say that if a man had once committed an offence without moral guilt and was then convicted of a second offence without moral guilt he ought not to be supervised. He would say that for such a man supervision was necessary as a protection both to society and himself from himself. If, therefore, it were agreed on the suggestion of his noble and learned Friend that the Judge should have power to declare in his sentence that a man might be exempt from supervision, the object of the Bill would be defeated altogether. Besides he would remind the House that there could be no legal doubt the Crown had power to remit this or any other part of the sentence. There were eighteen Judges who had power to pass these sentences, and if they left it to the Judges to decide in each case, the result would be a series of unequal sentences that would wholly destroy the certainty of the administration of the law. It was better that the power of exemption should be lodged in one mind—in the Secretary of State—than left to the varying tempers of the different Judges. An opinion had been expressed that the police might exercise an undue pressure on persons under supervision; but a fact had been stated to him by a young friend of his, who had taken an active part in the Discharged Prisoners' Aid Society, which went far to show that such an apprehension was not well founded. His friend had informed him that out of 2,500 cases of discharged prisoners which had come before that society there was not a single complaint that any one had been disturbed in his employment by the action of the police. There were one or two complaints of annoyance, but these did not appear to have rested on any very good ground. As to what was said about the injury done to a man's character by supervision, he must observe that a man's character was gone after two convictions. It was idle to say that after two convictions a man had a character. There might be one hard case in perhaps 100 under supervision; but would it be well for the sake of that one, and that of a person who, to say the least, had been twice convicted, to run the risk of having no supervision over the other ninety-nine? He repeated that he thought this question of remission was one that ought to be left to one authority—the Executive.

LORD CAIRNS

said, his noble and learned Friend had to some extent misapprehended the nature of his suggestion. He did not propose to leave it to the option of the Judge in every case to say whether supervision should be a part of the sentence or not. What he proposed was, that the Legislature should lay it down as the general rule that when a prisoner had been once convicted he should, as an incident of the sentence, on the second conviction, be placed under the supervision prescribed by the Act. That was to be the rule; but if his suggestion were adopted, the Judge might, on the face of his sentence, declare that the case was an exceptional one, and that the general rule of supervision was to be departed from. His noble and learned Friend (the Lord Chancellor) thought it was better to vest the dispensing power in the Executive, in order to avoid a diversity of opinion in similar cases; but Secretaries of State changed, and there were great differences of opinion among right hon. Gentlemen who filled the office of Home Secretary. Indeed, contrary decisions were sometimes given by the same Secretary. Again, what provision was there in this Bill to enable the Secretary of State to remit the supervision?

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

The supervision is a part of the sentence.

LORD CAIRNS

He doubted the opinion of his noble and learned Friend that the Crown had power to dispense with a portion of the sentence—the Crown could only grant a pardon which extended to the whole punishment. To enable the Secretary of State to change the sentence by remitting the supervision, power for that purpose should be taken in an Act of Parliament—a power similar to that by which the Secretary of State was enabled to grant a license in a case where there has been a sentence of penal servitude.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

said, that the actual imprisonment would be over. That portion of the punishment would have been suffered, and there would remain nothing but the supervision. The Secretary of State could remit that.

LORD CAIRNS

Yes, by a free pardon.

EARL GREY

said, he objected to any dispensing power being left either in the hands of the Judges or of the Secretary of State. His opinion was that the rule ought to be positive and imperative, and that there ought to be no exception whatever. He objected to a discretionary power being vested in the Judges, because when serving on the Penal Servitude Commission some years ago he had been much struck by the evidence that great evil arose from the way in which the Judges differed among themselves in their enforcement of the law. During the same Assizes, he remembered it was shown that in two towns at no great distance from each other, two convictions took place for offences very much of the same character and both for bad ones, that in the worst case a light sentence was passed by the Judge, while in the other, though it was certainly the least serious of the two, a very severe punishment was imposed by another Judge. One of the greatest evils that arose from this uncertainty in the administration of the law and the unwise lenity sometimes shown by the Judges was that the terror of the law among the criminal classes was thereby greatly diminished. He might remind, their Lordships of what happened when the punishment of three years' penal servitude was first introduced. This sentence was intended for offences that deserved more than two years' imprisonment, but which yet did not deserve seven years' transportation which was formerly the next punishment. But what happened? Why, in a short time, offences which had always up to that time been punished with seven years' transportation, came as a matter of course to be let off with three years' penal servitude. The result of this great diminution in the severity of the law was that men were found to come back to their old haunts and show their companions what a trifling thing three years' penal servitude was. Under these circumstances, it was not surprising that the law became inefficient to repress crime. This want of uniformity in the administration of the law unfortunately had continued down to the present moment. In illustration of his statement he would refer to a discussion which was reported recently to have taken place in the House of Commons. The Secretary of State was asked why he had remitted part of the punishment of a prisoner who was sentenced to penal servitude for life for a very aggravated manslaughter, scarcely to be distinguished from murder, though the Commissioners recommended life sentences should never be shortened, except under some special circumstances. The reply of the Secretary of State was that about the same time a similar offence, but of a still worse character, had been committed, and the prisoner had been sentenced to penal servitude for ten years; so that the Secretary of State was obliged to commute the sentence in the other case to restore the balance between them. He feared it was impossible to get rid altogether of this want of uniformity, but it was a great evil, and every effort ought to be made to insure, as far as might be practicable, that in future the law would be applied uniformly. With this view he thought such discretionary power only should be given to the Judges as might be absolutely necessary to prevent hardship and injustice. He did not think that any great hardship would be inflicted upon a man who had been twice convicted in subjecting him to supervision. He trusted that Her Majesty's Government would support the clause as it stood, and that there would be no dispensing power either in the Judges or the Crown.

LORD CHELMSFORD

said, he did not understand his noble and learned Friend (Lord Cairns) to move an Amendment, but merely to make a suggestion.

THE EARL OF DERBY

said, the noble and learned Lord opposite (the Lord Chancellor) did not appear to propose any Amendment on the part of Her Majesty's Government. He would suggest to the noble Earl opposite that it was desirable to introduce words into the clause so as to make it quite clear how far the powers of supervision by the police should be limited. He would propose to add words limiting the supervision "in accordance with the enactments hereinafter contained."

THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY

said, he would take into consideration the suggestion of the noble Earl on bringing up the Report.

LORD ROMILLY

, while fully admitting that the unfortunate people who had been twice convicted were not entitled to any peculiar favour, thought they were about to confer on magistrates an extraordinary power in providing that they might imprison a man for one year at their mere will and pleasure, for they are obliged to state no reasons, no fact which has caused their suspicion. The unfortunate man is guilty of poverty and want and, if he has been before twice convicted, without an accusation and without being called upon for defence he may be imprisoned for one year. He would suggest that this part of the clause should be omitted altogether—which appeared to him to be the better course—or at least that the magistrate should be required to state the reasons for his belief that the criminal was gaining his livelihood by dishonest means. He was satisfied that otherwise their Lordships would find it impossible to carry this clause into effect. Suppose a man suspected of an offence against the game laws, would that be sufficient to send him to prison for one year, when the man was in all other respects earning an honest living? It was necessary, if they passed this Bill, that they should carry with them the sympathies of the people, and they would not do that if the people felt the law was unjust; that one principle of law was applied to the rich and another to the poor.

Moved, to leave out lines 11 to 15, both inclusive.—(The Lord Romilly.)

THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY

could not agree with his noble and learned Friend in regarding these as "unfortunate" people. They were guilty, not of misfortune, but of crime, and it was important that the House, in legislating with regard to them, should recognize the distinction. At the same time there was no reason why they should be treated with undue severity. There was nothing in this clause to prevent a person from returning to honest occupation, if so minded; and a similar restriction to that applied in a former clause—namely, that the police were not to interfere with the particular individual without the written authority of the chief officer of police—would be adopted. The chief officer of police—having before him the certainty that if he made a mistake the whole matter would become public, and that he would incur severe censure at the hands of the magistrate—was not likely, he thought, to abuse the discretionary power which it was proposed to vest in him. Their Lordships would observe that the clause did not give the police the power of punishing offenders, but only of bringing them before a magistrate for investigation. There was a very considerable class of persons known to live by crime, but impossible to reach, because crime could not be brought home to them. The object of the clause was to place persons who had been convicted of two serious offences under police supervision. This would enable the police to reach the nest of old offenders and break up those gangs of thieves who infested our large towns, and who, though they were known to be living by crime, could not be arrested for any specific offences.

LORD ROMILLY

said, the noble Earl had mistaken the object of his Amendment, which was not to leave out the whole of the clause, but only five lines of the clause. As matters stood, without a word being said to the prisoner, without being called upon to defend himself in any way, the magistrate would have power to send him to prison for a year.

THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY

said, his noble and learned Friend was quite right, and he had not limited his argument as he ought to have done. He could only repeat that the first condition was, in his opinion, a valuable part of the clause. As to the other question about the magistrate giving his reasons, it would be more convenient to discuss that when the proper time came.

THE EARL OF LICHFIELD

agreed with all that had fallen from his noble and learned Friend (Lord Romilly), and asked the noble Earl who had charge of the Bill whether, when one of these persons was brought before a magistrate, the mere statement of the constable was to be accepted as sufficient, or whether there was to be proof of the previous convictions?

LORD COLCHESTER

hoped their Lordships would agree in some way to soften the language of this clause, inasmuch as the Bill they were now passing was of a very severe character, and introduced several entirely new principles. They must remember that the more penal the consequences which were made to follow from a second conviction, the greater the difficulty which would probably be experienced in obtaining a second conviction. There was also an ambiguity, he considered, in the clause itself, which might be productive of considerable difficulty where a man gained his living partly by honest and partly by dishonest means. Even with the restrictions which had been introduced, an arbitrary power was about to be given to justices which, he thought, would render the Act highly unpopular.

LORD CAIRNS

pointed out a difficulty arising out of the language of the earlier portion of the clause. Upon the second conviction of a prisoner it was to be "deemed to be part of the sentence passed on him, whether so declared by the court or not, that he was to be subject to the supervision of the police." But how was the magistrate to ascertain when a man was brought before him that the prisoner had been twice previously convicted? The record of the second conviction showed nothing; and even an entry of a former conviction against a prisoner of the same name showed nothing, because their Lordships knew how freely names were assumed and abandoned by persons in the criminal class. Were they, therefore, to impose upon a single magistrate the duty of trying a question of identity, with very insufficient means of doing so, and with no appeal from his decision? If this clause were to work well, as he was very anxious that it should do, it must be declared on the face of the second conviction itself that the prisoner had been previously convicted of an offence specified, and that on the expiration of the sentence awarded for the second offence he was to be subject to the supervision of the police.

THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY

said, their Lordships had now gone back a little upon the clause; but he would take care that on the Report the requisite Amendments were introduced.

LORD DENMAN

trusted that the noble and learned Lord (Lord Romilly) would press his Amendment, as this was the first instance he had met with of punishment being awarded merely on account of suspicion, and possibly on evidence adduced by the party himself.

LORD CHELMSFORD

approved the principle of the clause, but suggested that a difficulty would arise in its practical working. Unless it was expressed on the face of the second conviction that the prisoner was to be placed under police supervision, the magistrates must have it proved before them that he had been twice previously convicted, and this it might be very difficult to do. Suppose a person twice previously convicted were arrested by a constable and brought before a magistrate. Neither of them knew anything of the antecedents of the prisoner—at least, in such a definite mode as would enable them to deal with him under the provisions of the 10th clause. It was exceedingly impropable that two constables, or even one, able to prove previous convictions, would be forthcoming when a man was brought with little or no notice before a magistrate; and in that case it would be the magistrate's duty to discharge the prisoner. He would suggest the addition at the end of the clause of some such words as these—"And such justices, if they deem that there is reasonable ground for suspicion, may remand him from time to time until full inquiries have been made with respect to him."

THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY

believed the magistrates would have this power under the existing laws.

LORD CHELMSFORD

thought it would remove any cause for doubt if the power were given in the Act itself.

EARL GRANVILLE

suggested that the more regular course would be to dispose of the Amendment, which was formally before the House, before they proceeded to discuss other Amendments.

LORD ROMILLY

suggested that some record should be made of the reasons for committals by magistrates under the Act, but said he did not intend to trouble the Committee by moving the Amendment of which he had given notice, requiring those reasons to be endorsed on the warrant.

THE EARL OF LICHFIELD

suggested that convictions of persons under sixteen years of age should not be convictions within the meaning of the Act.

THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY

remarked that those who had committed offences in early life were just the persons whom it was most desirable to bring under the operation of the statute. The Act would in all probability be most beneficial in its operation on young criminals; they would be placed under such conditions that they could not keep up old associations and continue their bad habits. He could not see that there would be any hardship in what was proposed, or that it would be any serious addition to the sentence.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

would suggest that a conviction of a boy under the age of sixteen should not be allowed to operate; otherwise two convictions for stealing apples from orchards might render a youth liable to penal servitude.

THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY

That question arises in the 11th clause.

Amendment negatived.

THE EARL OF LICHFIELD

said, he had given notice of an Amendment to omit Clause 10, and insert another in its place, but it was quite clear it was useless to move the omission of the clause; and, although he abstained from proceeding to a division, he must protest against the course their Lordships were about to adopt; and he must also move the remainder of his Amendment, which would therefore be that the following provision should be inserted in the Bill:— Where any person is convicted of a felony or indictable misdemeanour for the first time the punishment which shall be awarded to such person if it exceeds imprisonment with hard labour for one calendar month shall in no case be less than imprisonment with hard labour for six calendar months; and where a person who is proved to have been previously convicted is convicted for a second time of a felony or an indictable misdemeanour, the punishment to which such person shall be sentenced shall in no case be less than imprisonment with hard labour for six calendar months. He wished to see greater certainty of increased punishment upon a second conviction, and further to see all imprisonments between one month and six months abolished. The noble Earl in charge of the Bill had clearly pointed out the necessity for certainty of punishment, which, however, was not secured by the Bill. According to the Bill, a person convicted for a second time might be punished with one month's imprisonment, when his previous sentence might have been the same. Then it was proposed that on a third conviction a prisoner should be subject to a sentence of seven years' penal servitude. It appeared to him it was necessary, if the discretion of Judges were limited in passing sentence upon a third conviction, it should also be limited to a certain extent in passing sentence upon a second convic- tion. His reason for wishing to abolish sentences of between one and six months was this—if they were desirous of seeing any real efforts made in the way of the prevention of crime, they must look to the mode of the treatment of prisoners in gaol. By abolishing short sentences of between one and six months they would enable a much better system of classification and treatment to be carried out in prisons. Whether that system was to be one of productive or of unproductive labour would soon have to be discussed. A large number of sentences of six months would enable them to carry out a much better system of classification and treatment than was now possible. The effect would be that the sentences would be pretty evenly divided between one month and six months, and therefore there would be no great increase of expense involved in the course which he proposed. The Bill was called the Habitual Criminals Bill, but there was no proof that the man who committed a second crime was an "habitual criminal." The contrary was more near the truth, for he believed that considerably more than half of those who were convicted a second time never returned to their evil courses; but undoubtedly the proportion of those who returned after a third or fourth conviction was very much larger. He denied altogether that on a second conviction a man was to be regarded as an "habitual criminal." If this clause of the Bill were to stand he should be disposed, on the Report, to move an Amendment to the effect that the question whether a man was or was not an "habitual criminal" should not be left either to the Judge or to the Secretary of State, but that it should be put to the jury. The police supervision provided for was commended to them on what he must consider unsatisfactory grounds. It was commended in consequence of the working of the system in London, where, however, it had not boon really tested, because nearly all discharged prisoners were placed in the care of the Discharged Prisoners' Aid Society. They were told that the system had worked well in Ireland; but the statistics adduced took no account of the vast number of persons who had emigrated to America, or who had come to England. There was really no satisfactory evidence that the system of police supervision was a good one. The sta- tistics cited by the noble Earl (the Earl of Kimberley) who had charge of the Bill were quite worthless for the purpose for which they were quoted. The noble Earl said there had been a large decrease in the number of penal servitude sentences between 1857 and 1867; but the reason was that we had increased penal servitude sentences from three to five years in ordinary cases, and from five to seven years on second conviction, and in too many cases the Judges had passed sentences of imprisonment only when otherwise they would have passed sentences of penal servitude. Other figures than those quoted must be taken into consideration if we wished to form a judgment of the effect of our police supervision and prison discipline. The figures of the noble Earl, going back as far as 1856, could not be depended upon. There had not been so large a decrease in indictable offences as might have been expected. The decrease shown by the figures was the less reliable because cases dealt with summarily since 1856 were altogether excluded; and therefore it was impossible to form an opinion as to the number of offences committed. Both our prison discipline, introduced by the Act of 1865, and our police supervision, introduced by the Act of 1864, had been total failures, and had not been followed by the results which it was rather implied by the noble Earl they had. The noble Earl concluded by moving his Amendment.

THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY

ventured to think, in spite of the opinion expressed by his noble Friend, that the statistics to which he had referred the other evening were not entirely worthless. When quoting the statistics on the introduction of the Bill he had cautioned their Lordships not to jump too rapidly to conclusions; but this was the very thing his noble Friend had done. Instead of taking the figures as a whole he had merely taken a part, and had thus fallen into a mistake. He still contended that a candid examination would show that on the whole there had been a decrease of crime.

EARL GREY

remarked that the Bill would raise this difficulty. A twice-convicted criminal was to be placed under the supervision of the police, and when so placed was liable to be brought up before a magistrate, and, under certain circumstances, to be sentenced to a year's imprisonment. If a man incurred that punishment in consequence of his inability to obtain the means of earning an honest livelihood, when the period of his discharge arrived, the man would not be a bit more able to maintain himself by honest industry than he was before. It was true that society would have been protected from his depredations during the year of his imprisonment, but beyond that fact they obtained no advantage. This was a difficulty that future legislators would have to face—they must devise some means of helping men who had been criminals and were desirous of reforming their lives, to obtain an honest livelihood. At present such men had the greatest difficulty in finding honest employment. With the stringency which such a Bill would impose, he felt sure that the evils arising from the discontinuance of transportation would be felt more and more. While transportation existed this difficulty did not arise, because in Australia, from the high value of labour a discharged convict had great facilities for earning his livelihood. He believed that the great majority of these people desired to abandon their criminal courses if they could obtain an opportunity of doing so. If they made a man liable to punishment for not maintaining himself honestly they must take care that the means of doing so were placed within his reach. He did not pretend to say how this could be accomplished, but their Lordships might depend upon it that it was a point that was not settled by the Bill. He certainly agreed in the opinion that the Judges and chairmen of quarter sessions should, in the exercise of their discretion, when they had to pass sentence on a man who had been convicted before, sentence him to penal servitude instead of imprisonment. Before the expiration of a term of penal servitude they had an opportunity of learning some trade, while, as a rule, they came out in better health and more capable of enduring severe labour than when they went in. He was not, however, prepared to go the length of rejecting the clause.

THE EARL OF HARROWBY

reminded their Lordships that the Discharged Prisoners' Aid Society, which had been the means of doing much good, confined its operations to convicts released from sentences of penal servitude, and did not extend its assistance to those who were only released from imprisonment. They were, therefore, bound to see that a man who would be liable to the severe punishment contemplated by this measure had had a fair opportunity of earning an honest livelihood.

Amendment negatived.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 11 (Persons thrice convicted of felony to be liable to be taken up if found under suspicious circumstances) amended, and agreed to.

Clause 12 (Amendment of sec. 4 of the Vagrant Act).

THE EARL OF LICHFIELD moved an Amendment, at end of Clause insert— And the justices or magistrate before whom such suspected person is brought may, if they or he think fit, in addition to or in lieu of any imprisonment to which he may be sentenced as a rogue and vagabond, require him to enter into his own recognizances and find a surety in a sum not exceeding twenty pounds for securing his good behaviour during a period of twelve calendar months, and in the event of such security not being found to order such suspected person to be imprisoned for a period not exceeding in the whole twelve calendar months.

THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY

thought it would be hard to adopt such an Amendment. It was unreasonable to expect that a man who had recently come out of prison would be able to get a surety in a sum of £20.

LORD DENMAN

said, it would be a great addition to the painful duty of a magistrate to be obliged to imprison instead of accepting two good sureties, if willing to come forward, and if he were satisfied with them, for the good behaviour of the man twice convicted before.

Amendment negatived.

Clause agreed to.

EARL BEAUCHAMP moved after Clause 12 insert the following clause:— Every person who shall be brought before two justices or a stipendiary magistrate charged with having in his possession anything which may reasonably be suspected of being stolen or unlawfully obtained, and who shall not give an account to the satisfaction of the justice or magistrate how he came by the same, shall be liable to a penalty not exceeding five pounds, and in default of payment may be imprisoned with or without hard labour, or in the discretion of the justice or magistrate to be imprisoned with or without hard labour for any term not exceeding two months.

THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY

objected to the clause as too stringent, and as opposed to the whole spirit of our legislation. It would apply to persons who had never been convicted of crime. By accident or negligence a person might become possessed of a thing for the possession of which he might fail to give what the justice would regard as a satisfactory account.

Clause negatived.

Clause 13 (Penalty for harbouring thieves, &c).

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

said, he wished to know whether the words "suspected persons" in the clause were capable of any legal definition, or whether they were to be understood in the ordinary sense of persona whom any other people might happen to suspect? If the words were to be taken in the latter sense, it appeared to him that their application would be too wide, and would, in fact, form a loi des suspects, and nothing else.

THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY

said, the word was used in the sense generally understood under the Act of 1864 and this Act. He would, however, before bringing up the Report, see whether the definition intended could not be made more precise in words.

LORD CAIRNS

asked the noble Earl whether the phrase "reputed thieves" was not too wide a one in a clause under which persons were to be punished who kept houses frequented by "thieves, reputed thieves, or suspected persons?"

THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY

said, that the words "every suspected person or reputed thief" occurred in the Vagrant Act, and were, therefore, not now used for the first time. Hitherto these words had been found satisfactory, and he would be loth to part with them.

THE EARL OF SHAFTESBURY

reminded the noble Earl that the proprietors of low beer-houses were in the habit of receiving goods upon deposit, and thereby presented a more ready means for the disposal of stolen property than even the receiving-house. He proposed to insert in line 10 in the clause, the words "or who allows the deposit of goods knowing them to be stolen." Such an enactment would meet the case of these deposit houses, or leaving-shops, which form such fruitful sources of crime.

THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY

said, the suggestion of the noble Earl was well worthy of consideration. It would, however, be as well if he were to give notice of his intention to move the Amendment on bringing up the Report.

EARL GREY

thought the Amendment of the noble Earl would effect a great improvement in the clause. It was also most desirable that they should not only punish the occupiers who were guilty of these offences, but that they should also be able to strike at the owners of these low beer-shops. At present, when a man carried on one of these places in an improper manner and forfeited his licence, the landlord turned him out and put another equal rogue into his place to carry on the same trade. He proposed that words should be inserted to provide that when an occupier of one of these places forfeited his licence no other occupier should be allowed to be licensed in that house, at all events for the next twelve months.

Amendment moved, after line 21 insert— And if any such house, shop, room, place, or other premises be licensed under statute regulating the sale of exciseable liquors or foreign wine, an offence under this section shall be an offence against the tenor of the license of the occupier of the house, shop, room, place, or other premises as aforesaid."—(The Earl Beauchamp.)

THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY

said, that offences under this Act would be offences against the license regulations. He approved the suggestion of the noble Earl, but would take time to consider the wards necessary to carry out his intention.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Part III.—Receivers of Stolen Goods.

Clause 14 (Burden of proof in cases of receiving stolen goods).

LORD CHELMSFORD

said, he would make a suggestion which he thought would meet an objection which a noble Friend (the Marquess of Salisbury) was about to make. He was not one of those who thought that this clause was too stringent; on the contrary, he was afraid as it stood at present it would utterly fail to attain the object with which it had been introduced. It was a most important clause, because if there were no receivers there would clearly be no thieves. The clause only applied to receivers of stolen goods who had been previously convicted of any offence punishable by imprisonment. Now, if this clause were passed as it stood, persons who had been previously convicted would transfer their business nominally to one of their relations, and thus the object of the clause would be defeated. In order to render the clause effective, he would move to insert the following words:— Where any person is found in the possession of goods recently stolen, and cannot prove that he has taken them under circumstances which would excite no reasonable suspicion in the mind of a careful and prudent man that they were dishonestly obtained, he shall be deemed and taken to have known them to have been stolen, and the burden of proof to the contrary shall be thrown upon him.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

hoped some stop would be put to the sanguinary disposition that appeared to have obtained dominion over some of their Lordships, and which he could only attribute to hunger. The Amendment proposed by the noble and learned Lord showed what ferocity might be developed in the most gentle natures under the influence of an excessive zeal for the maintenance of law and the protection of property. The Amendment he had to propose was of an opposite character. The clause was manifestly one of a very unusual and stringent character, and he felt that when introducing a provision into the Bill which was contrary to the whole spirit of English law they should be careful to keep within the strictest bounds of moderation. He proposed that the clause should not apply to persons whose previous convictions had occurred before they were sixteen years of age.

THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY

agreed with the noble Marquess that this was a most stringent clause, and that care should be taken that it did not work injustice, and he was very much disposed to accept his noble Friend's proposal. He would engage to take the matter into his consideration, but he could not then give any positive pledge with respect to it. The words "all persons previously convicted of any offence punishable by imprisonment" would doubtless bring persons within the scope of the clause other than those whom it was wished to reach. These were chiefly the receivers of stolen goods who were direct encouragers of crime, but it was not at all certain that a man belonged to that class because he had previously been convicted of some offence punishable by imprisonment. The clause, he thought, would better accomplish the end in view if it were made to read, "convicted of the offence of larceny or other offence against property." These words, of course, would very much limit the operation of the law.

EARL BEAUCHAMP

considered that the words just suggested might be found too restricted in their application. Serious offences against the person were surely of as grave a character as offences against property, and ought to be placed in the same category.

LORD COLONSAY

said, the object of the clause, as he read it, was to overcome the difficulty now experienced of proving that the persons who received goods knew them to be stolen rather than received them suspecting them to be stolen. But the operation of the clause ought to be restricted to cases ejusdem generis.

THE EARL OF CARNARVON

said, that he would first pass in review the wording of the various Amendments which had been suggested. "Felony" he regarded as too narrow a definition, because it would exclude such offences as cheating and uttering base coin, "Felony and misdemeanour," on the other hand, was too wide a term, because it included not only aggravated attacks upon the person, but likewise common assaults; and no one, he thought, should be exposed to Draconic penalties such as these merely because he had committed a common assault. The Amendment of which he himself had given notice though perhaps not expressed in very technical language, seemed to cover the ground more completely than any of the others, and he therefore offered it for the consideration of the noble Earl having charge of the Bill. It ran thus— Any person who had been previously convicted of any offence, involving fraud or dishonesty and punishable by penal servitude or imprisonment.

LORD ROMILLY

thought the words recommended by the noble Earl opposite not inadequate for the purpose, but suggested that it might be better to say simply "offences mentioned in the schedule," and then define these carefully hereafter.

THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY

said, that of the different proposals which had been made that of the noble Earl (the Earl of Carnarvon) seemed the most inviting. He admitted that the words he had himself proposed, "any offence against property" were too wide. It would be somewhat difficult to frame a schedule covering all the cases to which the Bill might be applicable.

Amendment (The Earl of Carnarvon) agreed to.

LORD ROMILLY

said, the clause as it stood was very stringent; and it was necessary, he thought, that persons who were to be put to the disproof of having received stolen goods with a guilty knowledge should have fair notice of what was required of them. He would therefore move an Amendment to mitigate the severity of the clause as it now stood.

Clause 14, page 5, line 30, leave out "offence" and insert "felony," and at end of clause, after "goods" insert— Provided that not less than fourteen days' notice shall be given to such person that proof is intended to be given of his previous conviction, and that he will be deemed to have known such goods to have been stolen until he has proved the contrary: Provided also, that for the purpose of proving the contrary such person shall be at liberty, if he think fit, to offer himself as a witness on his own behalf.

THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY

said, he was willing to agree to the Amendment of his noble and learned Friend, provided he substituted one week for a fortnight.

LORD ROMILLY

said, he would not press that point, but he certainly thought that a clause of this stringency ought to be carried out in such a manner as to prevent the sympathy of the public being excited on behalf of a man who was charged under it, on the ground that he was being too severely dealt with.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

thought it too harsh to assume the receiver knew the goods in his possession to have been stolen, unless he proved to the contrary. He would ask the noble Lord Privy Seal to put himself in the position of a man accused under that clause, and consider in what manner he would prove his innocence. It was an impossible process for any man to prove he did not know a thing.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

pointed out that for a man to come under the operation of that clause he must have been previously convicted, and therefore the illustration of the noble Marquess would not apply to his noble Friend the Lord Privy Seal. He strongly disapproved the proposal to allow a receiver to give evidence on oath in his own behalf. Following the ordinary course, the prisoner would make his defence, and the magistrate would give that defence due weight; if it squared with the facts in evidence, the defence would be held good, whether given on oath or not. Besides this, a man who offered himself as a witness would be subjected to cross-examination, and this would not be preferable to simply offering a defence.

LORD CAIRNS

also objected to the proposal to allow a man charged with a criminal offence to offer himself as a witness, because it was inexpedient to make so novel an exception to our criminal law in a particular instance. If the change were to be proposed at all, he would prefer that it should come before them as a separate measure.

THE EARL OF CARNARVON

suggested that receivers should be dealt with after the manner of utterers of base coin. The rule that the evidence should be confined to the question at issue was set aside in the case of utterers of base coin to the extent of allowing evidence to be given to prove that other offences of a similar character had been committed about the same time. The object of the clause under discussion being to deal with habitual receivers of stolen property, he thought it would be prudent to allow evidence to be given as to whether the person charged had not been guilty of receiving on two or three previous occasions. This would establish the character of an habitual receiver more certainly than any other means.

The first paragraph of Lord Romilly's Amendment agreed to; second paragraph negatived.

EARL GREY

proposed an Amendment which would meet the views of the noble Earl. When the police visited a receiver's house they often found the proceeds of various robberies concealed there, and this was proof of guilty knowledge. He therefore moved that— If any person not previously convicted shall be found in possession of goods which are proved to have been stolen in three or more different robberies, he shall be deemed to have known the same to have been stolen until he has proved the contrary, and if he should fail to prove the contrary, he shall be deemed to have committed as many distinct offences, for each of which he shall be liable to be separately punished, as there have been different robberies committed, the produce of which shall be found in his possession.

THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY

said, the Amendment proposed by the noble Earl would make the clause too severe. The term "any person" would include a pawnbroker who might be in possession of articles the produce of three or more different robberies, and yet not have a guilty knowledge in any case. To add this provision would greatly endanger the passing of the clause.

EARL GREY

said, if a pawnbroker was in possession of goods the produce of so many robberies, it would, show that very little care was exercised in the taking of pledges; and unless some such provision as he suggested were adopted, the receiving of stolen goods would never be put a stop to.

Amendment (Earl Grey) negatived. Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Part IV.—Pawnbrokers.

Clause 15 (Penalties, &c).

Clause 16 (Report by Pawnbrokers of stolen goods)

Clause 17 (If stolen articles be altered or defaced by pawnbroker he shall be held to be receiver of stolen goods).

LORD LYVEDEN moved to leave out these clauses. He had been requested to do so by a numerous, influential, and respectable body of tradesmen, who complained that they had been put into a Bill relating to "habitual criminals," in company with the receivers of stolen goods, and others concerned in crime. The objectors did not see why they should be put into the Bill at all; and the noble Earl did not give any reason for putting them in when he introduced the Bill. All he was reported to have said was that there were other provisions in the Bill of minor importance, some of which related to pawnbrokers, who frequently gave facilities for the disposal of stolen goods. The pawnbrokers said that their trade was endangered by the Bill, and they had presented a petition which set forth these facts— The number of licensed pawnbrokers in England and Wales exceeds 3,000; the capital embarked in their business cannot be less than £7,000,000; and the sum contributed by them directly to the revenue for their licenses amounts annually to more than £35,000. The number of pawns effected in the metropolis alone in the year 1866 was calculated with sufficient accuracy to exceed 28,000,000. It was supposed by some that pawnbrokers were in the habit of concealing crime, whereas they contended that they were remarkably instrumental and useful in detecting it, and that their duplicates facilitated its detection. Our Judges gave them credit for furthering the ends of justice; and in a case just tried at the Northampton Assizes, in which he was the committing magistrate, Mr. Justice Bovill complimented a pawnbroker as having been the only person through whom a criminal had been detected. The cases of pawnbrokers lending money on stolen goods were so few in proportion to the enormous number of their transactions that they did not deserve or require such stringent regulations. In the report of Major Greg, head constable of Liverpool, it was shown that out of 26,702 cases brought before the magistrates during 1868, only 140 related to unlawfully pledged goods. It was not generally known how large a proportion of pledges were redeemed. 28,000,000 of pledges were taken in in the metropolis alone in 1866. Of these all but 5 per cent were redeemed. The remainder that were pledges on which more than 10s. had been lent were publicly sold, and only 1 per cent of the 28,000,000 were pledges as to the rightful ownership of which by the pawners the pawnbrokers could not positively speak. It was perfectly clear that these were not persons to be dealt with wholesale as the receivers of stolen goods. He believed the majority of those in the trade were entirely honest; and if that were not believed, the pawnbrokers asked for a Select Committee, the striking out of these clauses, and the bringing in of a Bill to regulate their trade. They totally denied that they had anything to do with "habitual criminals," because they said they were just the persons to whom "habitual criminals" would never come. Yet it was proposed to injure their trade by rendering them and their books subject to the inspection of the police—not only of the chiefs, but possibly of a man at 23s. a week. And what was the trade that was to be exposed to this inspection? It was the business of making temporary loans on security; and was there any class of society members of which had not been benefited and perhaps rescued from ruin by such temporary loans? They were obtained by both poor and rich. Not one of their Lordships would like to have a policeman enter his house, demand to see accounts, and ask where money, plate, or diamonds came from. The consequence of this provision would be that a policeman would have the power to extort money by threatening to use his power. One clause provided that information was to be given to pawnbrokers of goods that had been stolen. The notices of things lost or stolen were so numerous that it could not be matter of wonder or blame if the pawnbroker or his shopman was unable to remember every one of them. They averaged from 35,000 to 40,000 annually; and it was very rare that the stolen goods pledged with a pawnbroker had been notified to him as having been stolen. But for the lateness of the hour he would have gone into the matter at much greater length, to show the injustice and the inutility of the proposed clauses, and the necessity, on the ground of absolute justice, of dealing with pawnbrokers by a separate Bill, and not classing them with "habitual criminals." He hoped his noble Friend (the Earl of Kimberley) would consent to strike out these clauses from this Bill, even if he brought them forward in another and separate one.

THE DUKE OF CLEVELAND

said, he did not object to legislation to regulate the trade of pawnbrokers; but whatever was done affecting them ought to be done by a separate Bill. He thought that the pawnbrokers had very great reason to complain that they should have been placed in a Bill that dealt with "habitual criminals," thereby stamping them as such. He did not say that certain regulations should not be adopted, and the pawnbrokers themselves did not object to legislation, but they courted inquiry. It was of the greatest importance on public grounds that the trade of pawnbroking should be conducted with a certain amount of secrecy, for it would be very injurious that the circumstances under which a loan had been obtained should be made known. It might be true, and it must be true, that a certain number of stolen goods find their way into the shops of respectable pawnbrokers, and it was utterly impossible to prevent that by the strictest legislation. Persons engaged in this trade must also, as a matter of course, trust to those whom they employed. It might be well to place the trade under stricter supervision, but if that were done it should be done by means of a separate Bill, and provisions relating to men, who for the most part were respectable, should not be placed side by side with those which dealt with "habitual criminals."

THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY

said, that the pawnbrokers had shown themselves perfectly capable of defending themselves. He had had some communication with them, and he thought they had in some respects made out a case for themselves—especially on the point to which the noble Duke had referred—they had some reason, perhaps, to complain that their trade—in which there were many respectable men—should be dealt with in the provisions of a Bill which eo nomine related to "habitual criminals." He could, he believed, point out many reasons why some such provisions as these were advisable; but his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department had come to the opinion that it would be better to deal with them in a separate measure. He should not therefore oppose the Motion of his noble Friend to strike out the clauses which dealt with this branch of the question. His noble Friend opposite (the Earl of Shaftesbury) had asked him how the Government intended to deal with the melters, refiners, and marine store dealers. There was precisely the same objection to placing them under the Bill that existed in the case of the pawnbrokers. The marine store dealers were at present placed under a very stringent Act of Parliament, while the melters and refiners—among whom there was a very large number of respectable men—might fairly complain if a clause affecting their trade were inserted in this Bill. His right hon. Friend the Home Secretary proposed to examine the Acts of Parliament relating to pawnbrokers and marine store dealers, and also the case of the melters and refiners, with a view to bring in a Bill on the subject. Under the circumstances, therefore, he should offer no opposition to the proposal for the omission of these clauses.

THE EARL OF SHAFTESBURY

was understood to say that he did not object to the withdrawal of the clauses from this measure; but unless provisions of a similar character became law he did not believe that the present Bill would be attended with the results which they all desired, for the strongest temptation to young thieves arose from the facility with which their plunder could be disposed of.

Clauses struck out.

Remaining clauses agreed to.

The Report of the Amendments to be received on Thursday next; and Bill to be printed as amended. (No. 32.)